Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications

537 P.2d 898, 14 Cal. 3d 678, 122 Cal. Rptr. 778, 1975 Cal. LEXIS 314
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 10, 1975
DocketL.A. 30430
StatusPublished
Cited by58 cases

This text of 537 P.2d 898 (Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, 537 P.2d 898, 14 Cal. 3d 678, 122 Cal. Rptr. 778, 1975 Cal. LEXIS 314 (Cal. 1975).

Opinion

*681 Opinion

THE COURT.

The Commission on Judicial Qualifications (the Commission) has unanimously recommended the removal from office of Judge Noel Cannon of the Municipal Court for the Los Angeles Judicial District of the County of Los Angeles. Judge Cannon has petitioned this court to modify or to reject the recommendation. We have independently reviewed the entire record and have adopted with slight modification the findings of the Commission. 1

We conclude that petitioner has engaged in twenty-one acts constituting “wilful misconduct in office” and in eight other acts constituting “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.” 2 Although some of the specific acts charged and found may overlap as arising out of a particular course of conduct, the totality of petitioner’s judicial misconduct nevertheless presents a compelling case against her. We deem to be particularly egregious the bad faith and maliciousness with which petitioner arbitrarily ordered the immediate incarcerations of deputy public defenders who displeased her, and denied the effective right of counsel to their clients who were required to defend against charges in on-going criminal proceedings with substituted counsel who were afforded no reasonable opportunity to prepare. As we find nothing to excuse or mitigate Judge Cannon’s conduct we adopt the Commission’s recommendation and order that she be removed from office.

Petitioner was appointed a judge for the Los Angeles Judicial District on April 10, 1963. The proceedings herein were initiated by the filing of a *682 notice of formal proceedings on July 8, 1974 (rule 905), and thereafter petitioner filed her verified answer denying the allegations set out in the formal notice. We appointed three special masters who commenced evidentiary hearings on October 15, 1974. (Rule 907.) 3 The masters concluded hearings on November 6, 1974, and filed their report on November 19 unanimously recommending censure of petitioner. Both petitioner-and the examiners designated by the Commission to prosecute the charges (rule 921(f)) filed written objections to the report (rule 913), and the objections were orally argued before the Commission on February 7, 1975 (rule 914). The Commission thereupon made its recommendation on March 3, based on findings of fact and conclusions of law as hereinafter appear (rules 918, 919). Petitioner, by virtue of the Commission’s recommendation, is disqualified from acting as a judge for as long as that recommendation remains pending before this court. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 18, subd. (a).)

The lengthy charges of petitioner’s misconduct are summarized in the margin. We have omitted from that summary, however, those particular alleged specific acts of misconduct not sustained by the findings of the Commission and dismissed by it. 4

*683 The masters found that all the specifications of the formal notice, as appearing in footnote 4, ante, to be proved to the extent that they *684 constituted acts of either wilful misconduct or prejudicial conduct, with the exception of five matters: The Russo matter of paragraph C (C-l), *685 the Hopkins-Ash matter of paragraph E (E-5), the alleged unlawful order to delete material from a transcript of paragraph G (G-l), the mechanical canary matter of paragraph H (H-2), and the matter involving Reverend Blackstone of paragraph H (H-4). The masters concluded that in each instance wherein they made affirmative findings petitioner had acted in bad faith and was guilty of wilful misconduct with the exception of the Brooks matter of paragraph C (C-3), the Laird matter of paragraph E (E-4), the Shalant matter of paragraph F (F-2), and all matters of paragraph H (H-l, 3, 5 and 6). The masters concluded as to those excepted matters that petitioner was guilty of .prejudicial conduct, although they were of the view that her conduct in connection with the resolution of censure by her fellow judges (H-l) was too remote in time to constitute grounds for disciplinary action. The masters were also of the view that there were mitigating matters, hereinafter considered, which warranted censure rather than removal from office.

The Commission made independent findings consistent with the masters’ findings as to all specifications except as to the five charges the masters had found not to have been proven. As to these the Commission concluded that the Russo matter (C-l) constituted an act of wilful misconduct, and that the Ash-Hopkins matter (E-5) and matters involving transcript deletions (G-l), the mechanical canary (G-2) and Reverend Blackstone (H-3) constituted acts of prejudicial conduct. In addition the Commission concluded that the Brooks matter (C-3) constituted an act of wilful misconduct rather than prejudicial conduct as concluded by the masters. 5 Finally, the Commission concluded that there were no factors in mitigation of petitioner’s misconduct.

Petitioner concedes the propriety of many of the Commission’s findings, although she disputes in almost every instance the Commission’s conclusions. It is for us, however, to make the final findings of fact and conclusions of law in determining what discipline, if any, is to be imposed. (Geiler v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1973) 10 Cal.3d 270, 276, 283-284 [110 Cal.Rptr. 201, 515 P.2d 1].) In doing so we will adopt particular findings of the Commission or of the masters but we will not, in all instances, set those findings out in detail when no purpose is served in doing so. Particular conduct, however, we deem to be of such significance that it must be fully exposed.

*686 Petitioner’s conduct is particularly significant in her dealings with public defenders who appeared before her in preliminary hearings. We have set out in the margin extracts from court proceedings pertaining to the Ridgeway (A-l, B-l), 6 Ryan (A-2, B-l), 7 Karagozian (A-3, B-l), 8 *688 Putnam-Price (A-4, B-l, F-3), 9 Henley (B-l, D-l, F-5), 10 KronebergerWeiss-Fleishman (B-2, F-4), 11 and Ingber (B-3) 12 matters. In some instances, we have included, in addition to extracts from the trial transcripts, factual statements in explanation of the circumstances then prevailing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Multani
California Court of Appeal, 2024
People v. Woodruff
421 P.3d 588 (California Supreme Court, 2018)
Inquiry Concerning Saucedo
62 Cal. 4th CJP Supp. 1 (California Supreme Court, 2015)
People v. Martinez
213 P.3d 77 (California Supreme Court, 2009)
People v. Paredes
71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 148 (California Court of Appeal, 2008)
In re Inquiry Concerning Velasquez
49 Cal. 4th CJP Supp. 175 (State of California Commission On Judicial Performance, 2007)
Weaver v. State
894 So. 2d 178 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2004)
In re Inquiry Concerning O'Flaherty
49 Cal. 4th CJP Supp. 1 (State of California Commission On Judicial Performance, 2004)
People v. Jones
91 P.3d 939 (California Supreme Court, 2004)
Inquiry Concerning Van Voorhis
48 Cal. 4th CJP Supp. 257 (State of California Commission On Judicial Performance, 2003)
State v. Huskey
82 S.W.3d 297 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2002)
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Dee Huskey
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2002
Marks v. Superior Court
38 P.3d 512 (California Supreme Court, 2002)
Inquiry Concerning Willoughby
48 Cal. 4th CJP Supp. 145 (State of California Commission On Judicial Performance, 2000)
Inquiry Concerning Shaw
48 Cal. 4th CJP Supp. 125 (State of California Commission On Judicial Performance, 2000)
Inquiry Concerning Bradley
48 Cal. 4th CJP Supp. 84 (State of California Commission On Judicial Performance, 1999)
Oberholzer v. Commission on Judicial Performance
975 P.2d 663 (California Supreme Court, 1999)
Fletcher v. Commission on Judicial Performance
968 P.2d 958 (California Supreme Court, 1998)
In Re Quirk
705 So. 2d 172 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
537 P.2d 898, 14 Cal. 3d 678, 122 Cal. Rptr. 778, 1975 Cal. LEXIS 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cannon-v-commission-on-judicial-qualifications-cal-1975.