In re Roca

• Decision Date: 16 December 2016
• Docket Number: No. 14 JD 15,14 JD 15
• Citation: 151 A.3d 739
• Parties: IN RE: Angeles ROCA, First Judicial District Philadelphia County
• Court: Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline

151 A.3d 739

IN RE: Angeles ROCA, First Judicial District Philadelphia County

No. 14 JD 15

Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania.

FILED: December 16, 2016

Honorable Robert A. Graci, Chief Counsel, Judicial Conduct Board

Elizabeth A. Flaherty, Deputy Counsel

Samuel C. Stretton, Esquire

BEFORE: Honorable Jack A. Panella, P.J., Honorable John J. Soroko, J., Honorable David J. Shrager, J., Honorable David J. Barton, J., Honorable Doris Carson Williams, J., Honorable Jeffrey P. Minehart, J.¹

OPINION

FILED BY PRESIDENT JUDGE JACK A. PANELLA

The Judicial Conduct Board (Board) filed a Complaint with this Court on December 18, 2015, against Angeles Roca (Respondent), a Judge on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Following a petition filed by the Board, the Respondent was suspended without pay on January 13, 2016. A trial was held before a panel of three judges of this court, and the Respondent was adjudicated to have violated the following canons and constitutional provisions:

a violation of former Canon 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct;

a violation of former Canon 2B of the Code of Judicial Conduct;

a violation of Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, conduct such that brings the judicial office into disrepute;

a violation of Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, conduct such that prejudices the proper administration of justice; and

an automatic, derivative violation of Article V, § 17(b) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, inasmuch as it has been found that Respondent's conduct constitutes a violation of former Canons 2A and 2B of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Basically, we concluded that the conduct of Judge Roca, by way of her knowingly accepting the offer of former Judge Waters to make ex parte contacts with another judge to influence her decision in a case involving Respondent's son, supported the findings outlined above. The record was replete with references to intercepted phone calls between former Judge Waters and Respondent. These were clear, overt, and ex parte steps taken to influence the case in favor of Respondent's son.

The Respondent filed a motion to waive objections and exceptions to the adjudication of the Court which had been filed on October 20, 2016. A hearing on sanctions was held on November 21, 2016, which was attended by the Respondent and her counsel as well as counsel from the Judicial Conduct Board. The Respondent testified and submitted a brief on sanctions as well as a statement of witnesses. Additionally, the Respondent's sister, Milagros Roca, her judicial secretary, Elsie Echevarria, and her judicial law clerk, Virginia Jutierrez, testified. Lastly, the Respondent requested that we incorporate the testimony from the character witnesses who appeared at the time of trial, as well as a number of letters received on Respondent's behalf.

We have said before 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.

The Pennsylvania Constitution provides sanctions available to the Court which include removal from office, suspension, fine, censure, and public or private reprimand.² When dealing with judicial misconduct, this Court has recognized that the sanction should fit the misconduct.

Article V, § 18 of the Pennsylvania Constitution governs the review of our decisions. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court must review the record of the proceedings of the Court of Judicial Discipline: "on the law, the scope of review is plenary; on the facts, the scope of review is clearly erroneous; and, as to sanctions, the scope of review is whether the sanctions imposed were lawful." Pa. Const. art. V, § 18 (c)(2) ; In re Berkhimer , 593 Pa. 366, 371, 930 A.2d 1255, 1258 (2007)

FACTORS CONSIDERED ON SANCTIONS

The Supreme Court of this Commonwealth is the sole authority on the issue of sanctions, and we take our guidance from that Court as well as from prior opinions of this Court. In In re Toczydlowski , 853 A.2d 24 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2004), in considering the appropriate sanction, we made reference to In re Deming , 108 Wash.2d 82, 736 P.2d 639 (1987), a case decided by the Supreme Court of Washington, and we adopted that court's ten nonexclusive factors in fashioning an appropriate sanction. Our review of these factors in this case is as follows:

(a) Whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidenced a pattern of conduct: The misconduct giving rise to the charges In this case involves a single matter in which the Respondent knowingly agreed to have another judge intervene in a case to help her son.

(b) The nature, extent and frequency of occurrence of the acts of misconduct: This consideration is similar to the first factor, and we note that the suggestion by former Judge Waters, that he Intercede on behalf of Respondent's son, was not rejected or refused by the Respondent. The Respondent clearly acquiesced to the help offered by former Judge Waters. Additionally, we found that Respondent not only agreed to the ex parte help offered by former Judge Waters, but she actively got involved in Waters making the suggested contacts. The Respondent took no steps to reject the offer of ex parte help, or to report the conduct In issue, as to Waters or herself, until after she was notified that she had been recorded on an authorized wiretap conducted by the FBI.

(c) Whether the conduct occurred in or out of the courtroom: Some of the phone conversations took place in the courthouse and the contacts were made using government equipment in judicial chambers.

(d) Whether the misconduct occurred in the judge's official capacity or in his private life: The actions which brought about these charges were not related to the Respondent's official responsibilities but she utilized her position as a judge to assist her son in his case.

(e) Whether the judge has acknowledged or recognized that the acts occurred: The Respondent did not file an Answer to the Board's Complaint, which under the Rules of the Court is deemed a denial of the accusations. She later, when faced with the wiretapped conversations, readily admitted her involvement.

(f) Whether the judge has evidenced an effort to change or modify his conduct: After the initial inquiry sent to the Respondent by the Judicial Conduct Board, the Respondent denied asking former Judge Waters for any favors for her son. After the Respondent had been confronted by the FBI with the existence of the wiretap, she filed a supplemental response and later acknowledged that the conversations took place. At the hearing on sanctions held on November 21, 2016, the Respondent expressed great remorse for her conduct:

What I did wrong was something that I shouldn't have done. I put my family before my judicial ethics, and I really am sorry about that. I can't apologize enough. I can't take it back ... It's not who I am. It's not who I want to be. It's not what I want to do. Transcript, 11–21–16 at 37.

(g) The length of service on the bench: From October 2008, the Respondent served continuously as Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia until her suspension as noted above. Her appointed term began on October 25, 2008, followed by an elected term which started on January 4, 2010.

(h) Whether there have been prior complaints about this judge: The Court of Judicial Discipline knows of no prior complaints against the Respondent.

(i) The effect the misconduct has upon the integrity of and respect for the judiciary: The misconduct here goes to the sanctity of the judicial process—it involved manipulating cases for reasons other than the evidence presented, and the conduct involved ex parte help for a family member.

(j) The

...