Public Decisions Database
This database contains decisions on all public judicial disciplinary cases since the inception of the commission in 1960. Cases not involving public charges or public discipline remain confidential under the California Constitution and the commission’s rules.
Pursuant to amendments to the Constitution, which took effect in March 1995, the commission is authorized to impose all disciplinary sanctions, subject to discretionary review by the Supreme Court. Prior to that, the Supreme Court had the authority to censure or remove judges from office upon recommendation by the commission.
Case Profile
New Search| First Name | Jose A. |
| Last Name | Velasquez |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | 180 |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | Monterey |
| Discipline/Determination | Removal from office |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 04/25/2007 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Demeanor/decorum Disqualification/disclosure/post-disqualification conduct Failure to ensure rights On-bench abuse of authority in performance of judicial duties |
| Petition For Review | Denied 10/10/2007 |
| Summary | Judge Velasquez engaged in a pattern of misconduct that infringed defendants' constitutional rights and transgressed limits of his authority, including denying due process at probation modification hearings; threatening to increase and increasing sentences when defendants asked legitimate questions about their sentences or otherwise commented at sentencing; conditioning sentences in speeding cases on defendants’ responses to whether it felt good to "peel out"; failing to advise of rights at arraignment, especially the right to plead not guilty; issuing bench warrants when the defendants were not legally required to appear and refusing to recall them when the judge later learned that the failure to appear was the attorney’s mistake and not the defendant’s; and ordering an attorney to produce letters that had been submitted to the presiding judge when Judge Velasquez knew he had been disqualified in the cases that were the subject of the letters. The judge also used inappropriate humor, joking about jail time and incarceration, and made disparaging remarks about counsel. The judge had been previously censured by the commission. |
| Documents |