By a MetNews Staff Writer

A judge’s resignation from office is effective on the date specified on the letter tendering the resignation, a spokesman for Secretary of State Bill Jones said Friday.

If no effective date is specified, the date of the letter is controlling, Alfie Charles told the MetNews.

The question arose after the Commission on Judicial Performance took the unprecedented step Thursday of removing a judge who had purportedly resigned.

The CJP said Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Patrick B. Murphy merited removal, and that it believed it had the authority to boot the controversial jurist off the bench—for missing hundreds of days of work and falsely claiming they were due to illness—because no letter of resignation had been received by the governor when the commission’s lawyer checked on Tuesday.

The commission was unaware that Murphy’s letter of resignation, dated May 4 and effective immediately according to its terms, was received Wednesday by Gov. Gray Davis. The CJP decision recited that "[i]f it is determined that Judge Murphy has resigned prior to this order of removal, this decision shall be considered a public censure of former Judge Patrick B. Murphy and a bar from receiving any assignment, appointment, or reference of work from any California state court."

The issue is significant because a judge removed by the commission cannot practice law without the permission of the state Supreme Court. A judge who has resigned may do so, although discipline by the State Bar for misconduct committed while a member of the judiciary remains a possibility.

Murphy has not commented publicly and has not indicated whether he intends to resume practicing. State Bar records showed no resumption of membership status as of Friday.

Charles cited a 1924 Third District Court of Appeal decision, Meeker v. Reed, 70 Cal.App. 119. The court held there that it was "the settled law of this state" that a public official’s resignation takes effect upon the date set forth, and that no formal acceptance is required, although a spokesman for the governor’s office said the resignation had been "accepted" when it was received.

A similar ruling was made by the state Supreme Court in 1856, in the case of People v. Porter, 6 Cal. 26, which said that an unconditional resignation was complete, without formal acceptance, when transmitted to the proper authority.

Victoria Henley, director-chief counsel of the CJP, said Thursday there was no further action to be taken by the commission, even in light of the receipt of Murphy’s resignation. Commission rulings are subject to discretionary review by the Supreme Court, she explained, and not to rehearing or reconsideration by the CJP itself.