Opinion ID: 1298515
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is a further hearing appropriate under section 4?

Text: We must determine if the Commission need convene a further hearing under section 4. Respondent argues that he has already presented his evidence under this section and asks that we note that a majority of the Commission believed that if removal was not required and automatic under section 3, he should not be removed from office. Counsel for the Commission points out, however, that no section 4 hearing has been convened and that as the Commission's counsel she has a responsibility to present the evidence she deems appropriate to guide the Commission in making its recommendation regarding the appropriate discipline. Ordinarily we would agree, but believe remand is neither necessary nor appropriate. First, respondent tells us he has already submitted the evidence he considers relevant to a section 4 hearing. Next, our holding that respondent is precluded from advancing any explanation attempting to rebut a knowing and intentional possession relieves Commission's counsel of much of the evidentiary burden that might otherwise be necessary. The Commission has already told us that unless we are required to suspend without pay  and thus remove respondent  under art. 6.1, § 3, it believes we should exercise our discretion against such a procedure. Presumably, therefore, it holds the same view with respect to sanctions, such as removal, available under section 4. This court, however, is the final judge of law and fact in these proceedings. Haddad, 128 Ariz. at 491, 627 P.2d at 222. Finally, it is very much in the public interest that the matter be brought to a conclusion as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, this court can and should proceed without further hearing and impose on respondent whatever sanctions are available and appropriate under art. 6.1, § 4.