Thursday, October 18, 2018
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Obstruction of Justice Conviction Does Not Subject Commerce Mayor to Lifetime Ban From Office
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
HUGO A. ARGUMEDO Mayor of Commerce |
The 2010 conviction of City of Commerce Mayor Hugo A. Argumedo for misdemeanor obstruction of justice does not constitute “malfeasance in office” within the meaning of a state constitutional provision providing for a lifetime bar from holding public office, the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday.
Justice Victoria Chaney wrote for Div. One in affirming Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson’s denial of the city’s petition for a writ of quo warranto.
The city relied upon Art. VII, §8(b) of the California Constitution which provides:
“Laws shall be made to exclude persons convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, malfeasance in office, or other high crimes from office or serving on juries.”
It also cited Government Code §1021, which sets forth:
“A person is disqualified from holding any office upon conviction of designated crimes as specified in the Constitution and laws of the State.”
Felony Charged
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office had filed a felony perjury charge against Argumedo in December 2010. The allegation was based on a declaration Argumedo signed in support of former Commerce City Attorney Francisco Leal’s effort to avoid a settlement agreement under which he was obligated to pay the city $70,000.
Prosecutors charged that Argumedo “unlawfully, under penalty of perjury, declare[d] as true, that which was known to be false, to wit: False declaration signed and submitted to the Los Angeles Superior Court in [a] civil case…that a $20,000 settlement offer in civil case…had never been presented for consideration to the Commerce City Council.”
Argumedo pled guilty to a misdemeanor pursuant to a plea bargain.
The Office of Attorney General on Nov. 9, 2015, granted the city leave to sue in quo warranto.
Johnson found that “the City has not established morally corrupt or dishonest conduct by Argumedo,” adding:
“[T]he Supreme Court has established a high burden of proof for quo warranto relief, requiring proof without ambiguities. The court has carefully reviewed the records and evidence provided by the parties, and has found that the city has not sustained this burden of proof.”
Chaney’s Opinion
Explaining the affirmance, Chaney said:
“Argumedo pleaded guilty to misdemeanor obstruction of justice in violation of Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1), a crime not specifically enumerated as one disqualifying a person from holding public office. Because article VII, section 8, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution and Government Code section 1021 authorize disqualification from office only upon conviction of the specified offenses, the question here is whether the 2010 record of Argumedo’s conviction for obstruction of justice unambiguously establishes malfeasance in office, not whether the City, five and a half years later in a civil trial, established facts showing Argumedo committed malfeasance in office through documents and witness testimony not admitted in the criminal proceedings.
“We conclude the record of Argumedo’s conviction does not unambiguously show his guilty plea to obstruction of justice constitutes a conviction for malfeasance in office as set forth in article VII, section 8, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution….[C]ase law indicates the crime of malfeasance in office evidences moral corruption and dishonesty as do convictions for bribery, perjury and forgery (the other crimes specifically enumerated in article VII, section 8, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution)…. A conviction for obstruction of justice does not necessarily imply moral corruption and dishonesty. Further, a conviction for obstruction of justice does not imply conduct that occurred ‘in office,’ a necessary element of malfeasance in office. The trial court did not state for the record the particular factual basis it found for the plea, and Argumedo did not admit any specific facts.”
Attorney Fees Denied
In an unpublished portion of the opinion, Chaney found that Johnson did not abuse his discretion in declining to award Argumedo his attorney fees.
Argumedo was elected to the City Council in 1996 to fill out an unexpired term and was reelected in 1997, 1999, 2003, and 2007, and again in 2015.
He became mayor in July.
The case is City of Commerce v. Argumedo, B280814.
Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company