Opinion ID: 7347068
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: OR Release

Text: Level of Misconduct The masters concluded that in ordering the OR release of Ghazal, Judge Petrucelli violated California Code of Judicial Ethics, canons 1, 2, 2A, 2B(1), 2B(2), 3B(2), and 3B(7). We agree and adopt these legal conclusions as our own. 7 A violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics constitutes one of three levels of judicial misconduct: willful misconduct, prejudicial misconduct, or improper action. A judge who engages in willful or prejudicial misconduct may be subject to censure or removal. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 18, subd. (d).) The masters concluded that Judge Petrucelli engaged in prejudicial misconduct by ordering Ghazal’s OR release. Prejudicial misconduct is “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.” (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 18, subd. (d).) Prejudicial misconduct while acting in a judicial capacity does not require bad faith; rather, it is “conduct which a judge undertakes in good faith but which nevertheless would appear to an objective observer to be not only unjudicial conduct but conduct prejudicial to public esteem for the judicial office.” (Geiler, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 284.) We concur with the masters that the judge’s conduct in ordering the OR release of an acquaintance based on the request of a friend diminishes public confidence in the objectivity and impartiality of the judiciary. The examiner maintains that the judge committed willful misconduct, the most serious form of judicial misconduct. Willful misconduct is unjudicial conduct that is committed in bad faith by a judge acting in a judicial capacity. (Broadman, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 1091.) Neither party disputes that Judge Petrucelli engaged in unjudicial conduct 8 and was acting in a judicial capacity when he ordered Ghazal’s release. The issue in dispute is whether the judge acted in bad faith. A judge acts in bad faith “only by (1) performing a judicial act for a corrupt purpose (which is any purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duties), or (2) performing a judicial act with knowledge that the act is beyond the judge’s lawful judicial power, or (3) performing a judicial act that exceeds the judge’s lawful power with a conscious disregard for the limits of the judge’s authority.” (Broadman, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 1092.) In Broadman, the Supreme Court held that the intentional commission of an act the judge “ ‘should have known’ ” was beyond the judge’s lawful authority is insufficient to prove that the judge acted in bad faith. (Broadman, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 1091-1092.) However, the court stated: “Because transgressing the limits of a judge’s lawful authority is not the faithful discharge of judicial duties, a judge who performs such acts with no regard at all for whether they are legally permitted cannot be said to be acting with a purpose to faithfully discharge judicial duties. Thus, a judge’s reckless or utter indifference to whether judicial acts being performed exceed the bounds of the judge’s prescribed power is a state of mind properly characterized as bad faith.” (Id. at p. 1092.) The examiner urges the commission to address whether the particular circumstances here establish that Judge Petrucelli acted in “conscious disregard” of the limits of his judicial authority, or with a “reckless or utter indifference” to whether he was. acting within his judicial power. In the examiner’s view, the judge’s state of mind was “tantamount to willful ignorance,” because he relied on a practice he learned of years earlier and inade no inquiry as to any applicable law before acting. The examiner also contends that the judge acted for a corrupt purpose even if he believed the process he employed was proper because his purpose was not the faithful discharge of judicial duties, but to obtain the release of someone he knew whose well-being was the subject of a friend’s concern. We consider the judge’s failure to make inquiries into the current state of the law and the propriety of authorizing a telephonic release of an inmate charged with spousal abuse to be exceptionally careless and irresponsible. However, based on the factual findings of the masters to which we have deferred, we conclude that this state of mind does not constitute clear and convincing evidence that the judge acted with a conscious disregard or a reckless or utter indifference to the limits of his judicial authority or for a corrupt purpose. The masters provided the following persuasive support for their conclusion that Judge Petrucelli did not act in bad faith: the judge testified credibly that he believed he was acting within his authority; the judge’s experience as a deputy sheriff and his conversation with then Presiding Judge Quashnick shortly after he took the bench provided a basis for his belief that telephonic releases were appropriate; the evidence established the practice was ongoing, although to a far more limited extent; and correctional officers did not question the judge’s authority to OR release Ghazal and mentioned a form that had been used for telephonic releases. We agree with the examiner that Judge Petrucelli should have known to make further inquiries before relying on a practice he learned of years earlier and should have considered whether the practice he relied on included ordering the release of persons with whom a judge had a relationship requiring disqualification. However, should have does not constitute bad faith. In the context of willful misconduct, Broadman equates bad faith with actual malice. (Broadman, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 1091-1092.) We do not suggest that bad faith can only be established through an admission by the judge that he or she consciously acted outside the bounds of judicial authority. In Freedman, supra, 49 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 223, the judge testified he was not conscious of his delayed matters when he signed salary affidavits attesting that he did not have delayed cases under submission. The masters found this testimony to be credible. The commission adopted the masters’ factual finding concerning the judge’s state of mind, but concluded that in those instances where the judge executed salary affidavits shortly after being informed of having delayed matters, he acted with an utter indifference to whether the affidavits were true or false. However, under the circumstances of this case, the evidence does not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Petrucelli acted with an utter indifference to whether his actions exceeded his judicial authority. The examiner also urges us to reject the masters’ finding that the judge did not act for a corrupt purpose, and instead find that he acted for the sole purpose of helping an acquaintance at the behest of his good friend, a purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duties. Although our review of the record has given us pause, we decline to reject the masters’ finding that the judge did not act for a corrupt purpose in deference to the special weight to which the credibility findings of the special masters are entitled. Commission decisions cited by the examiner do not convince us to reject the masters’ conclusion that Judge Petrucelli did not act in bad faith. In each of those cases, the masters made factual findings that the judge acted in bad faith, supporting the conclusion that the judge engaged in willful misconduct. (Inquiry Concerning Stanford (2012) No. 190 [53 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 1] (,Stanford) [judge conceded he acted for a purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duties by, in nine instances, diverting traffic tickets of family and friends to his own court and suspending fees and fines]; Inquiry Concerning O’Flaherty (2010) No. 188 [50 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 1] [judge issued no-contact order with knowledge that it was beyond his judicial authority to do so]; Inquiry Concerning Platt (2002) No. 162 [48 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 227] (Platt) [masters rejected the judge’s testimony that he did not realize that his actions were wrong when he dismissed several traffic tickets not before him for people he knew and attempted to influence other judicial officers on behalf of people he knew].) For these reasons, we adopt the masters’ legal conclusion that Judge Petrucelli’s conduct in authorizing the OR release of Ghazal constitutes prejudicial misconduct. Canon 3E( 1) Violation The Notice charged the judge with violating California Code of Judicial Ethics, canon 3E(1), which requires a judge to disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which disqualification is required by law. Judge Petrucelli does not dispute that he would have been disqualified from presiding over Ghazal’s criminal case in court and from presiding over any matter in which Netzer represented a party. However, he maintains that a telephonic OR release from jail is not subject to disqualification because it does not constitute a “proceeding” within the meaning of canon 3E(1). The examiner urges the commission to find a violation of canon 3E(1) because the judge’s failure to disqualify himself encompasses “the essence of the misconduct.” The terminology section of the Code of Judicial Ethics defines both “impending proceeding” and “pending proceeding.” An “impending proceeding” is defined as: “[A] proceeding or matter that is imminent or expected to occur in the near future. The words ‘proceeding’ and ‘matter’ are used interchangeably, and are intended to have the same meaning.” A “pending proceeding” is defined as: “[A] proceeding or matter that has commenced. A proceeding continues to be pending through any period during which an appeal may be filed and any appellate process until final disposition. The words ‘proceeding’ and ‘matter’ are used interchangeably, and are intended to have the same meaning.” Both definitions refer to specific canons, but neither refers to California Code of Judicial Ethics, canon 3E(1). Judge Petrucelli took judicial action after Ghazal had been arrested, but before the matter appeared in court. Because California Code of Judicial Ethics, canon 3E(1) refers only to “proceeding,” rather than “pending” or “impending” proceeding, we must address the question of whether a proceeding requiring disqualification includes matters that are expected to occur in court in the near future or is limited to court proceedings. The rules governing interpretation of statutes, constitutional provisions and voter initiatives provide guidance. First, words must be construed in accordance with their usual and ordinary meaning. (The Recorder v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 258, 268-269 [85 Cal.Rptr.2d 56] (Recorder); Lennane v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 263, 268 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 563, 885 P.2d 976].) Second, where there is ambiguity, the language must be given a fair and reasonable interpretation, with due regard to the purpose sought to be accomplished. (Cedars of Lebanon Hosp. v. County of L. A. (1950) 35 Cal.2d 729, 734-735 [221 P.2d 31, 15 A.L.R.2d 1045].) First, we look at the ordinary meaning of “proceeding” and “matter” (the terminology section of the Code of Judicial Ethics states that “proceeding” and “matter” are used interchangeably and are intended to have the same meaning). Common dictionary definitions of “proceeding” include event, official record of a thing said or done, legal action, and transaction. (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dict. (11th ed. 2012) p. 990; Santos v. Brown (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 398, 416 [189 Cal.Rptr.3d 234].) “Matter” in this context is defined as a subject under consideration, a subject of disagreement or litigation, something to be proved in law. (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dict., supra, at p. 766.) The Supreme Court has described the term “proceeding” as malleable, the meaning of which depends on the context and subject to which it relates. (Recorder, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 270.) “ ‘Proceeding’ in a legal context generally refers to the conduct of judicial business . . . .” (Santos, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 416.) Judge Petrucelli does not dispute that he was taking judicial action when he ordered Ghazal’s release. In the commission’s view, the usual and ordinary meaning of “proceeding,” both in a common and in a legal context, encompasses judicial action in ordering an OR release from jail. To the extent there is ambiguity, we interpret “proceeding” in a manner that effectuates the intent or purpose of the canon. The purpose of a canon requiring disqualification as required by law is to “assure the parties and the public of the integrity and fairness of the judicial process.” (Rothman, Cal. Judicial Conduct Handbook (3d ed. 2007) 7.00, p. 293.) Thus, disqualification benefits not only the parties, but the public as a whole. (Flamm, Judicial Disqualification (2d ed. 2007) 17.5, p. 497.) If “proceeding” is limited to actions pending in court, a judge with a disqualifying interest would not be disqualified from making probable cause determinations and signing search and arrest warrants. (See In re Krull (Iowa 2015) 860 N.W.2d 38 [magistrate reprimanded for violating Iowa rule requiring disqualification from any “proceeding” in which the judicial officer’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned by signing a prearrest warrant to search the residence of a person with whom the judge had a relationship requiring disqualification].) A narrow interpretation of “proceeding” that excludes judicial action taken before a criminal case is filed would defeat the intent of California Code of Judicial Ethics, canon 3E(1) — to assure the public that judicial action will be exercised impartially. This purpose is best accomplished through an interpretation of “proceeding” that encompasses prefiling judicial determinations. Having determined that California Code of Judicial Ethics, canon 3E(1) applies to the telephonic OR release process employed by Judge Petrucelli, we turn to the question of whether the judge was required to disqualify himself. Grounds for disqualification by law include when a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt about the judge’s impartiality, when the judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or her ability to be fair, and when the judge has personal knowledge of disputed facts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(A)(ii), (iii), (1)(A), (B).) Judge Petrucelli testified that he would disqualify himself from any matter in which Netzer appeared as an attorney and from any criminal case in which Ghazal was a defendant. Moreover, while the judge describes Ghazal as an “acquaintance,” the relationship is sufficiently close that a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt about the judge’s impartiality. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(A)(iii).) The judge, Netzer, and Ghazal belonged to HBC, a group of 10 to 13 individuals who socialized together and hosted social events at their homes every month or two. Ghazal attended approximately half of these events. The judge made judicial determinations in relation to his decision to OR release Ghazal based on his personal knowledge and opinion of Ghazal. Further, through his contacts with HBC members, the judge acquired information about Ghazal’s relationship with his wife that could be material to the spousal abuse charges for which Ghazal was arrested and prosecuted. He also considered facts he knew from his personal relationship with Ghazal, such as Ghazal’s close relationship with his daughter, in making a judicial determination concerning his flight risk. As Special Master MacLaren observed in her inquiry of the judge: “[I]s this a fair statement, that factors that caused you [(the judge)] to believe that this would be an appropriate situation for an honor release, namely, that this was someone known in the community, a person of relative good standing, you were unaware of any past run-ins with the law, did not believe him to be a flight risk or a danger to the public, that that’s what — that’s what made you comfortable going forward with asking for the honor release .... [¶] ... [¶] And it was those same facts that also would have caused you to disqualify yourself because . . . that would be information you have about this individual and a prior relationship that would raise doubts about your ability to be fair?” The judge agreed this was a fair statement. For these reasons, we conclude that Judge Petrucelli violated California Code of Judicial Ethics, canon 3E(1) by failing to disqualify himself from making a determination concerning Ghazal’s release from jail.