Court Opinion

ID: 9764675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:35:45.515746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:00.335123
License: Public Domain

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring.
I fully concur in the result reached by the majority in this case that automatic forfeiture under Article V, Section 18(i) *259of our Constitution does not apply here because Judge Braig was not tried and convicted of “misbehavior in office.”
Unlike the majority, I have no hesitancy in concluding that the People, in adopting Article V, Section 18(Z), preserved the common law crime of “misbehavior in office” and that it is still a viable, chargeable offense which could not be abrogated by the Legislature when it enacted the current Crimes Code.
I believe that Article V, Section 18(Z) is applicable where a jurist is charged specifically with the crime of “misbehavior in office.” As the majority notes, the nonfeasance in office. When a jurist is convicted of “misbehavior in office” the sentencing judge will impose the automatic forfeiture provision as a part of the sentence which can then be reviewed as any other judgment of sentence. I am concerned that the majority has chosen to avoid speaking clearly on what crime must be charged in such cases and, in so doing, has failed to give direction to the bench and bar in the manner that these very important cases are to be commenced, prosecuted and disposed.
In any event, now that this Court has clarified the procedures to be applied to questions of judicial discipline and automatic forfeitures, it is hoped that the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board will act expeditiously in resolving the status of the judges who do not fall within the automatic forfeiture provisions.