In re Jennings

• Citation: 192 A.3d 372
• Decision Date: 18 July 2018
• Docket Number: No. 4 JD 14,4 JD 14
• Parties: IN RE: Robert JENNINGS, III, Magisterial District Judge, Magisterial District Court 12-2-04, Dauphin County
• Court: Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania

192 A.3d 372

IN RE: Robert JENNINGS, III, Magisterial District Judge, Magisterial District Court 12-2-04, Dauphin County

No. 4 JD 14

Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania.

Filed: July 18, 2018

Robert A. Graci

James P. Kleman, Jr., Deputy Counsel, Judicial Conduct Board

Heidi F. Eakin, Esquire

BEFORE: Honorable David J. Barton, P.J., Honorable David J. Shrager, Honorable Doris Carson Williams, J., Honorable Jeffrey P. Minehart, J., Honorable Michael J. Barrasse, J., Honorable Jazelle M. Jones, J., Honorable John H. Foradora, J., Honorable James C. Schwartzman, J.¹

OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE BARTON

This case considers charges that a Magisterial District Judge forced several constables who served arrest warrants and civil process from his judicial office to contribute a percentage of their remuneration to his reelection fund.

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 14, 2014, the Judicial Conduct Board (Board) filed a Complaint against Magisterial District Judge Robert Jennings, III, alleging that then-Judge Jennings violated various provisions of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges and the Pennsylvania Constitution. These allegations included that Judge Jennings demanded constables receiving work from his judicial office contribute ten percent of their earnings to Judge Jennings's reelection campaign fund. Contemporaneously, the Board filed a Petition to Suspend With or Without Pay, and this Court suspended Jennings with pay on November 17, 2014.

On September 18, 2015, the Office of Attorney General filed criminal charges against Jennings stemming from substantially the same conduct as was alleged in the disciplinary case.² After the filing of the criminal case the Board filed a Petition asking the Court to change the suspension to one without pay. Through counsel Jennings filed a response, and the Court suspended Jennings without pay on July 29, 2015. Soon thereafter Jennings resigned his commission as a magisterial district judge in Dauphin County. The litigation of this case was stayed while the criminal case was prosecuted.³

On September 11, 2017, Jennings entered a plea of nolo contendere⁴ to charges of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2906(a)(4) Criminal Coercion⁵ (M2), and 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 7322 Demanding Property to Secure Employment⁶ (M3). Jennings was then sentenced to consecutive terms of one year of probation on each conviction and to pay applicable restitution.

The Board filed a Motion to Amend Complaint on October 13, 2017, alleging five violations as follows:⁷

1. Violation of Old Rule 2, Impropriety and Appearance of Impropriety to be Avoided:

A. Magisterial district judges shall respect and comply with the law and shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary[.]

2. Violation of Old Rule 12, Incompatible practices:

Magisterial district judges and all employees assigned to or appointed by magisterial district judges shall not engage, directly or indirectly, in any activity or act incompatible with the expeditious, proper and impartial discharge of their duties, including, but not limited to: (1) in any activity prohibited by law[.]

3. Violation of Article V, § 18(d)(l) of the Pennsylvania Constitution ("[magisterial district judge] may be suspended, removed from office or otherwise disciplined for ... conduct which prejudices the proper administration of justice ....")

4. Violation of Article V, § 18(d)(l) of the Pennsylvania Constitution ("a [magisterial district judge] may be suspended, removed from office or otherwise disciplined for ... conduct ... which brings the judicial office into disrepute, whether or not the conduct occurred while acting in a judicial capacity ....") and

5. Violation of Article V, § 17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution ("[magisterial district judges] shall be governed by rules or canons which shall be prescribed by the Supreme Court.")

The parties filed Joint Stipulations of Fact in Lieu of Trial pursuant to C.J.D.R.P. No. 502(D) on May 21, 2018.⁸ The Joint Stipulations, which are accepted by this Court as the facts necessary to determine the issues in the case, consist of 15 paragraphs largely establishing the jurisdiction of this Court, the authority of the Board, the dates that Jennings served as a magisterial district judge, and the facts surrounding the criminal prosecution culminating in the nolo contendere pleas discussed herein. The stipulations pertinent to the charges include:

12. On September 11, 2017, former Judge Jennings pleaded nolo contendere to one count each of criminal coercion, in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2906(a)(4), a misdemeanor of the second degree, and demanding property to secure employment, in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 7322, a misdemeanor of the third degree. A copy of former Judge Jennings written nolo contendere plea colloquy is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and incorporated by reference, and marked as Exhibit 2; a copy of former Judge Jennings nolo contendere plea colloquy and sentencing transcript is attached hereto, incorporated by reference, and marked as Board's Exhibit 3.

13. As a result of former Judge Jennings nolo contendere plea, Senior Judge Harold F. Woelfel sentenced former Judge Jennings to one year of probation on each count, to be served consecutively, and required him to pay applicable restitution. A copy of the sentencing order entered by Senior Judge Woelfel on September 11, 2017, is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and incorporated by reference, and marked as Board's Exhibit 4; a copy of the docket of Commonwealth v. Robert Jennings, III, CP-2 2-CR-5229-2015, reflecting his nolo contendere plea and sentence, is attached hereto, incorporated by reference, and marked as Board's Exhibit 5.

14. By virtue of his nolo contendere plea, former Judge Jennings stands convicted of criminal activity related to the exercise of his judicial duties, i.e., his decision to retain the services of certain constables predicted on their accession to his demand that they make monetary contributions to his judicial re-election campaign fund from a portion of the income they received from performing constable services for former Judge Jennings's judicial office.

Jt. Stip. of Facts, at 3-4.

II. DISCUSSION

This is a corruption case. This Court has repeatedly stated that "our judicial system should stand as the symbol of fairness and justice, and of equal protection dispensed to every citizen. We have also said that no type of corruption is tolerable in the Pennsylvania judiciary." In re Roca, 151 A.3d 739, 741 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2016) aff'd 172 A.3d 1176 (2017).

This case requires us to evaluate the direct and collateral effects of a plea of nolo contendere in the context of judicial discipline, and in particular whether the submitted stipulations incorporate enough of the underlying facts to permit our full evaluation of the conduct leading to the disciplinary charges.

Under our Rule 502, when the parties have submitted stipulations of fact, we must determine whether the stipulations are "as to all facts necessary to a decision of the issues in the case." C.J.D.R.P. No. 502 (D)(1). If we conclude that the stipulations do not fairly reach the conduct involved, or if there are other issues that must be resolved, we are free to reject the stipulations and schedule a conference, or schedule a trial on any remaining issues. C.J.D.R.P. No. 502 (D)(3). A status conference was held on June 13, 2018, for the purpose of determining whether the stipulations included enough of the facts upon which the criminal prosecution was premised in order to permit the court to fairly consider the connection between any criminal conduct and Jennings's judicial office. As stated above, we have accepted the stipulations.

"The effect of a nolo contendere plea in Pennsylvania ... when accepted ... is an implied confession of guilt only, and cannot be used against the defendant as an admission in any civil suit for the same act." Eisenberg v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare, 512 Pa. 181, 516 A.2d 333, 335 (1986) citing Commonwealth v. Ferguson , 44 Pa. Superior Ct. 626 (1910) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A plea of nolo contendere has the same effect as a guilty plea for purposes of sentencing and is considered a conviction, although it is not an admission of guilt. "Rather, ... the plea admits that the allegations, if proven, meet the elements of the offense or offenses charged .... The difference between a plea of nolo contendere and a plea of guilty is that, while the latter is a confession binding the defendant in other proceedings, the former has no effect beyond the particular case." Commonwealth v. Moser , 999 A.2d 602, 606-607 (Pa. Super. 2010) quoting Com. ex rel. Monaghan v. Burke, 74 A.2d 802, 804 (Pa. Super. 1950) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In Eisenberg, a dentist entered a nolo contendere plea to federal charges of mail fraud relating to his participation in Pennsylvania's Medicaid program. He later sought to contest his suspension by the state Department of Public Welfare from the Medicaid Program by arguing that his nolo contendere plea was not an admission of the fraud.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Department of Public Welfare's suspension could properly be predicated upon the criminal conviction of mail fraud without relying upon the facts of the underlying criminal case. "[H]ere, [the Department] does not attempt to use the plea as a judicial admission of the fraud. Rather, the conviction entered upon the plea itself is the operative fact which authorizes the suspension." Eisenberg at 336. See also Meth v. State Real Estate Commission, 14 Pa.Cmwlth. 203, 321 A.2d 221 (1974) (affirming revocation of broker's license where elements of federal conviction arising from nolo plea were sufficient to violate state licensure statute).

Here, the Board suggests that the Court has three bases upon which it can evaluate the underlying...