INQUIRY CONCERNING VILLEGAS, 01-201 (Ariz. 2002)

Inquiry Concerning Adelita Villegas

No. 01-201.Supreme Court of Arizona.
November 14, 2002.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct (“Commission”) initiated formal proceedings against Justice of the Peace Adelita Villegas (“Respondent”) on July 18, 2002, by issuing a Notice of Formal Proceedings and a Statement of Charges (“Charges”) pursuant to Rule 24 of the Rules of the Commission on Judicial Conduct (“Rules”). Respondent received the notice and the Charges on July 18, 2002. On November 8, 2002, the Commission was presented with a Stipulated Agreement to Public Censure, a Stipulation of Expected Testimony, and a Stipulation of Facts, all of which were signed by the Respondent, Respondent’s Counsel, and Disciplinary Counsel for the Commission. All parties consented that a public censure was an appropriate resolution to the formal charges. The Respondent also waived her rights to appeal the charges at issue or to exercise the procedures set forth in Rule 29.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Commission has jurisdiction over these matters pursuant to Article 6.1, of the Arizona Constitution.

2. The Respondent has been a full-time justice of the peace in the East Phoenix #1 Justice Court at all times relevant to the allegations.

3. As a justice of the peace, the Respondent is and has been subject to all of the canons contained in the Code of Judicial Conduct, Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. 81 (“Code”).

4. As set forth in the stipulation, Respondent requested Maricopa County Human Resources personnel to remove or transfer the chief clerk and the assistant clerk, both of whom are Caucasian, and replace them with Spanish-speaking individuals. Respondent also requested that job openings be filled with bilingual individuals. Although Respondent maintains she did so without any discriminatory motive, she understands how others could have interpreted her actions as reflecting a desire to employ more Hispanics.

5. Respondent stipulated to the allegations in Count V of the Charges that between January 29, 2001, and July 18, 2002, she was absent or late during scheduled business hours while litigants were awaiting proceedings in her court.

6. Respondent stipulated to the allegations in Count VI that between January 29, 2001, and July 18, 2002, she performed marriage ceremonies for compensation during court hours.

7. Respondent stipulated to the allegations in Count VII that between January 29, 2001, and July 18, 2002, she failed to follow the law by accepting Mexican drivers licenses as a defense to charges or citations for driving without a license for individuals residing in Arizona.

8. Respondent stipulated to the allegations in Count via that on or about November 19, 2001, she signed an injunction against a political opponent in the 2000 election, prohibiting him from going near his own business.

9. The Commission further accepts and adopts both the Stipulation of Expected Testimony and the Stipulation of Facts and hereby incorporates those documents by reference.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
10. The conduct described in Count V of the Charges violates Canons 2A (“A judge shall … act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”) and 3B(8) (“A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, effectively and fairly.”) of the Code.

11. The conduct described in Count VI violates Canon 4J(4) of the Code (“A judge shall not charge or accept a fee, honorarium, gratuity or contribution for performing a wedding ceremony during court hours.”).

12. The conduct described in Count VII violates Canons 2A (“A judge shall, act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”) and 3B(2) (“A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.”) of the Code.

13. The conduct described in Count VIII violates Canons 2B (“A judge shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.”), 3B(2) (“A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or feat of criticism.”), and 3E(1) (“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . .”) of the Code.

14. The conduct described in Counts V, VI, VII and VIII also constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute within the meaning of Article 6.1, § 4(A) of the Arizona Constitution.

RECOMMENDATIONS
15. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission accepts the stipulations and recommends that the Supreme Court publicly censure the Respondent for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

16. The Commission further submits that this recommendation may be deemed final, pursuant to Rule 29, inasmuch as Respondent has waived her right to file a petition to modify or reject this recommendation.

DATED this 14th day of November 2002.

COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT