gno.law

In Re Chavez

California Supreme Court · L.A. 30162 · 1973-08-02 · Published · 512 P.2d 303 · 9 Cal. 3d 846 · 109 Cal. Rptr. 79 · 1973 Cal. LEXIS 231

In Re Antonio E. Chavez, a Judge of the Municipal Court, on Censure.

Area
other

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

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.

Cited by