Opinion ID: 1162726
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: abandonment and relinquishment of office

Text: The commission specifically found and concluded: 1. [Judge Goldman] has not performed the duties of his office since October 19, 1986. He is not presently performing any of his judicial duties. He has not offered to perform those duties, and has not requested the Supreme Court to vacate the order relieving him of judicial authority, which he solicited. Indeed, he stated at the hearing on June 12, 1987, that he has no desire to return to work, he claims he is unable to work as a judge, and he asserts that he has no intention of ever returning to the bench. 2. By written declaration to the Governor, [Judge Goldman] first asserted his intention to relinquish his office on October 30, 1986, and has performed no further judicial service since that time.[ [36] ] 3. By written declaration to the Governor, subsequently placed in evidence with this Commission, by public declarations to the news media, by written pleadings to the Commission, and by testimony to this Commission, [Judge Goldman] has announced his irrevocable intention to abandon his judicial office and his clear intention not to resume performance of his judicial duties. 4. The Commission concludes, therefore, that [Judge Goldman] has voluntarily abandoned and relinquished his judicial office, and that, therefore, it must declare the office vacant. Our review of the record reveals clear and convincing evidentiary support for the commission's findings. Appellant's unequivocal testimony before the commission that he had no desire whatever to return to being a judge and the additional statements and declarations in appellant's letter to the governor and in appellant's formal answer dispel any question as to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the commission's findings. Moreover, based upon these findings, the commission properly concluded that a formal declaration of vacancy was warranted. For all practical purposes, appellant's office had remained without an active, full-time presiding judge for approximately nine months. There was an evident need for the full complement of judges in the Eighth Judicial District, a judicial district which has experienced a steady and extraordinary increase in population in the last decade. Confronted with such an imperative, together with appellant's insistence that he believed himself incapable of performing any of the functions of his office and that he had no intention whatever of returning to the bench, we conclude that the commission's action was necessary and proper. Indeed, declaring appellant's office vacant on this ground minimized the prospect that an appeal challenging the commission's remaining findings respecting disability retirement or removal for misconduct might needlessly delay or confuse the process of selecting a successor judge, notwithstanding appellant's stated intention never to return to the bench. Appellant has asserted on appeal, however, that pursuant to NRS 3.080(1), only the governor may declare a vacancy in the office of district judge and, therefore, the commission lacked jurisdiction to take such action. [37] We disagree. The commission did nothing more than acknowledge a de facto vacancy of long duration which appellant's own testimony and actions unequivocally confirmed. We recognize, of course, that appellant never sought to retire unconditionally. Quite to the contrary, appellant sought an early, enhanced disability retirement that was vastly more advantageous financially than the normal retirement he had earned and which the commission ultimately found to be his only entitlement. Nonetheless, appellant never indicated that, in the absence of a finding that he was entitled to a disability pension, he would attempt to remain on the bench. Nor did he offer or request permission to resume his duties in a limited capacity with a reduced workload designed to accommodate his circumstances. Rather, appellant's statements and actions evidenced a clear intention never to resume any judicial functions under any circumstances. Consequently and in light of the commission's remaining findings, we fail to discern how appellant was prejudiced, even assuming that the commission exceeded its authority by declaring appellant's office vacant. In any event, the Nevada Constitution specifically empowers the commission to remove a judge from office for willful misconduct, willful or persistent failure to perform the duties of his office or habitual intemperance... . See Nev. Const. art. 6 § 21(6)(a). Further, the commission is authorized to retire a judge for advanced age or for a disabling mental or physical condition that is likely to be permanent in nature. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 21(6)(b). The power to adjudicate and order the removal or retirement of a judge must necessarily imply the power to declare the office vacant. See generally Galloway v. Truesdell, 83 Nev. 13, 422 P.2d 237 (1967). To the extent that the commission's exercise of this implied authority may have conflicted with any express ministerial duty imposed upon the governor by the legislature, the commission's power was clearly preeminent. See Goldman v. Bryan, 106 Nev. 30, 37, 787 P.2d 372, 377 (1990) (citing Robison v. District Court, 73 Nev. 169, 175, 313 P.2d 436, 440 (1957)). To hold otherwise would elevate form over substance. Accordingly, we conclude that the commission acted entirely within the ambit of its lawful authority. Appellant further complains that he was deprived of due process of law because the commission failed to provide him with fair and sufficient notice of the charge of his allegedly having `voluntarily abandoned and relinquished his judicial office.' [38] See generally, In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968). We note, however, that both the commission's order clarifying issues and its earlier order of formal complaint adequately apprised appellant that the commission considered appellant as having acknowledged that he would not continue in judicial office. The order clarifying issues not only indicated that the facts and circumstances surrounding this issue constituted one of three distinct issues then pending in the proceedings, but also that, under these circumstances, the commission considered appellant to have vacated his office. Moreover, as noted, the matter was initially placed in issue by the only evidence appellant submitted at the probable cause hearing, i.e., appellant's letter to the governor declaring that he was unable to perform the duties of his office. The statements and declarations in appellant's own verified answer further served to focus the issue, and at no time did appellant register any concrete objection to the commission's stated intention to declare his office vacant at the formal hearing. Thus, appellant had adequate notice that this matter was in issue, well in advance of the formal hearing. Consequently, we perceive no procedural irregularity. See Gruenburg v. Kavanagh, 413 F. Supp. 1132 (E.D. Mich. 1976). Nor do we perceive any actual prejudice that may be attributed to the purported irregularity. See In re Robson, 500 P.2d 657 (Alaska 1972).