In Re Chavez

California Supreme Court

In Re Chavez

512 P.2d 303, 9 Cal. 3d 846, 109 Cal. Rptr. 79, 1973 Cal. LEXIS 231

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 2, 1973

DocketL.A. 30162

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 512 P.2d 303 (In Re Chavez) 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

In Re Chavez, 512 P.2d 303, 9 Cal. 3d 846, 109 Cal. Rptr. 79, 1973 Cal. LEXIS 231 (Cal. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The Commission on Judicial Qualifications, following a hearing before it and review of a report of special masters appointed pursuant to rule 907, California Rules of Court, objections to that report, and the record of the hearings before the special masters, found, inter aha, that Judge Antonio E. Chavez regularly furnished to a bail bondsman presigned orders for release of prisoners on bail and that Judge Chavez was aware that the bail bondsman subsequently filled in those orders, fixed bail without authority from a judicial officer, and used the orders to secure the *847 release of prisoners arrested for felonies. There is no evidence that the judge received any consideration for the presigned orders.

The commission concluded, inter alia, that Judge Chavez was guilty of “wilful misconduct in office” (see Cal. Const., art.. VI, § 18) and recommended that he be censured.

Upon our review of the record we are satisfied that the foregoing conclusion of the commission is fully justified and that the commission’s recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, and by this order Judge Chavez is hereby censured.

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

Opinion

THE COURT.

The Commission on Judicial Qualifications, following a hearing before it and review of a report of special masters appointed pursuant to rule 907, California Rules of Court, objections to that report, and the record of the hearings before the special masters, found, inter aha, that Judge Antonio E. Chavez regularly furnished to a bail bondsman presigned orders for release of prisoners on bail and that Judge Chavez was aware that the bail bondsman subsequently filled in those orders, fixed bail without authority from a judicial officer, and used the orders to secure the *847 release of prisoners arrested for felonies. There is no evidence that the judge received any consideration for the presigned orders.

The commission concluded, inter alia, that Judge Chavez was guilty of “wilful misconduct in office” (see Cal. Const., art.. VI, § 18) and recommended that he be censured.

Upon our review of the record we are satisfied that the foregoing conclusion of the commission is fully justified and that the commission’s recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, and by this order Judge Chavez is hereby censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

512 P.2d 303, 9 Cal. 3d 846, 109 Cal. Rptr. 79, 1973 Cal. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-chavez-cal-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack