Saturday, September 1, 2007

Supreme Court denies motion to remove judge

Court criticizes Judicial Standards attorney's motion

Clara Garcia News-Bulletin Staff Writer; cgarcia@news-bulletin.com

Santa Fe The State Supreme Court denied a motion this week filed by the Judicial Standards Commission seeking the removal or retirement of Valencia County Magistrate John "Buddy" Sanchez from office.

In June, the commission filed a motion with the court seeking Sanchez's removal after it alleged he didn't comply with the court's order to report the results of a medical test and failed to maintain a level of his serum ammonia levels.

In its order filed on Monday, the Supreme Court noted that the medical tests were "appropriately reported," and despite the commission's assertions to the contrary, the court didn't mandate that the judge's levels remain below the 45 umol per liter. Sanchez has a form of encephalopathy, a complication of liver failure with elevated ammonia levels, which requires ongoing therapy. If the levels go too high, he could have psychotic episodes.

The court also denied a motion filed by Sanchez requesting sanctions against the commission and appointment of an independent counsel.

"This court notes with some concern that counsel for the commission, James A. Noel, failed to accurately represent the terms of this court's order ..." the order says. "Although Mr. Noel may have believed in good faith that the proposed terms in the commission's motion were adopted by this court, Mr. Noel is nonetheless engaging in an unreasonable construction of this court's April 13 order."

The court also said in its order that while they are inclined to accept Noel's explanation for his conduct, in the future, he "should quote accurately and directly from the text of this court's orders, and, of course, should otherwise accurately represent the state of the record before this court at all times."

David Smoak, chairman of the Judicial Standards Commission, said Thursday that the commission as a whole agreed to file the motion, not just Noel.

"We misunderstood the order, apparently," Smoak said. "They (the court) get to tell us what the order said, but we believed something different. It (the order) said that if he (Sanchez) failed to meet the criteria, they didn't leave us any room for discretion — we (the commission) were ordered that we 'shall' proceed to seek the removal or retirement of Judge Sanchez."

Smoak said when the commission met to decide whether to file the motion seeking Sanchez's removal, there was no dissension among its members.

"I feel badly for the way it came out," Smoak said of the court's admonition of Noel. "I think it's a misinterpretation of Mr. Noel — it was the commission's decision."

Noel, who is the executive director and general counsel for the commission, said he couldn't comment on the order and referred all questions to Smoak.

Sanchez said this week that, after he read the court's order, he was glad to see that the Supreme Court took time to look at the case and addressed the issue appropriately. After the commission filed its motion earlier this summer, Sanchez and his attorney, Justin Pennington, accused the commission of unfair treatment and that Noel had a "vendetta" against the magistrate.

"I think the Supreme Court realized what was going on, and there was some retaliation here," Sanchez said. "I'm 100 percent, as far as my heath goes, and I want to assure the public that I'm OK, and I appreciate everyone for standing behind me and my family, not only during my illness, but also during what the Judicial Standards Commission have put me through."

Sanchez says that he has been through a lot in the past several years, not only heath-wise, but also with the on-going scrutiny he has been subjected to. He alleged he has been harassed by the commission and is glad that the Supreme Court realizes that he is complying with its orders.

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I've answered everything that has been put out by the Judicial Standards Commission," he said. "I've won at all my hearings, but I continue to be harassed. Once they get their sights on you, they'll keep going even though nothing is going on."

In June 2006, Sanchez agreed to undergo an evaluation for independent physical and psychological fitness for duty by a panel of four doctors, including a psychiatrist. The medical panel concluded in June that Sanchez was at that time both psychologically and physically unfit to perform the duties of a judge.

Sanchez was placed on indefinite paid administrative medical leave by the Supreme Court in July 2006.

In February, Noel told the Supreme Court during an open hearing that Sanchez was being treated for a number of ailments including alcohol dependency in early remission, severe alcoholic liver disease with cirrhosis, multiple organ failure (liver, renal and pulmonary), portal hypertension, persistent hepatic encephalopathy (a complication of liver failure) with elevated ammonia levels requiring ongoing therapy, and a bacterial infection associated with E. Coli.

The commission's executive director told the court that Sanchez was also diagnosed with chronic prescription opiate use for muscular skeletor pain, personality traits including denial and defensiveness affecting recovery from underlying illness, having a history of brief, reactive psychosis, psychosocial and environmental problems. He said the panel of two medical doctors, one psychiatrist and one sociologist, who evaluated Sanchez twice maintained that he suffers from a chronic alcohol problem and is in severe denial.

In January 2007, the same independent medical panel completed a second fitness for duty evaluation of Sanchez, and again concluded that he was unfit to perform the duties of a judge, Noel said.

In March, the court ordered that Sanchez could return to the bench after being placed on an eight-month medical leave if he complied with certain requirements including enrolling in an alcohol treatment program, submitting to random urinalysis screening and providing certification to the court regarding his serum ammonia levels.

Pennington said that in regards to the ammonia levels, the court's initial order indicated that the magistrate's "next test shall produce a result lower than 45" — a requirement the attorney said Sanchez did comply with. In an amended order filed the next week, the Supreme Court said that Sanchez "shall continue routine testing" and report the results to both the commission and the court.

"In the amended order, the court denied the commission's motion to continue the 45-point threshold," Pennington said. "Yes, there was a spike in his levels in May, but the point of monitoring him is so that the doctors can adjust his medications. The last test he took showed he was at a 39."

The Judicial Standards Commission was created in 1968 and is charged with investigating allegations made against state judges including judicial misconduct, persistent failure or inability to perform judicial functions and disability seriously interfering with the performance of judicial duties.

The commission has no independent authority to discipline, remove or retire a judge. The Supreme Court is the only institution empowered to do that upon recommendation from the commission.

E-mail this story Printer-friendly version