In re Terry A. Canales

Summary

The Texas Review Tribunal considered an appeal from the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct's recommendation that Judge Terry A. Canales be removed from office and permanently barred from holding judicial office. The case involved allegations of sexually suggestive comments and nonconsensual physical touching of three women, as well as challenges concerning pleading variance, evidentiary sufficiency, procedural standards, discovery, and the appropriate burden of proof. The tribunal sustained a pleading-variance issue concerning one allegation but rejected the challenge to the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

Holdings

1. A twelve-month variance between the year alleged in the formal notice and the year established by the evidence was substantial, misleading, and potentially prejudicial; the Commission was required to amend the formal notice or obtain a trial amendment before relying on the changed date.
2. The proper burden of proof in a Texas judicial removal proceeding is preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence.
3. The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the Commission's misconduct findings involving the pregnant daughter of the bailiff and the district attorney's office employee.
4. Removal from judicial office and a permanent bar from holding judicial office were appropriate and not excessive sanctions for the sustained misconduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Commission's finding concerning the secretary's complaint was supported by the live formal notice when the notice and evidence alleged a different year.
2. Whether the proper burden of proof in judicial removal proceedings is preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.
3. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the Commission's findings concerning the complaints of the pregnant daughter of the bailiff and the district attorney's office employee.
4. Whether the respondent preserved complaints concerning discovery and allegedly exculpatory records.
5. Whether the proceedings violated the respondent's constitutional rights.
6. Whether removal and a permanent bar from judicial office were excessive sanctions.

Disposition

approved