The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Thursday to issue a notice of intent to remove embattled Sheriff Christina Corpus, the first step in a process voters authorized through a March ballot measure.
The board’s action kicks off a potential months-long removal procedure, which stems from a 400-page independent report that accused the sheriff of misconduct, corruption and an inappropriate relationship with her former chief of staff, Victor Aenlle. The report, released last year, was led by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell.
Corpus has denied any wrongdoing and has resisted calls to resign. With a team of lawyers by her side, Corpus sat quietly in the back of the board’s chambers. Afterward, she told reporters she had expected the decision.
“They have a motive,” said Corpus, the county’s first Latina sheriff. “I’m standing tall because I know what is right. I’ve done nothing wrong. Crime is down. This rhetoric of public safety being at risk is an agenda pushed by certain individuals and groups. I can’t wait to be heard in the appropriate arena.”
She declined to take questions, however, deferring to her legal team.
Related Articles
San Mateo County board to consider launching removal process for Sheriff Corpus
Investigator clears San Mateo County executive of misconduct in sheriff’s complaint
San Mateo County to require quarterly reports on big-ticket purchases
Sheriff’s union accuses San Mateo County of labor violations
Former top sheriff’s aide seeks $15 million from San Mateo County over firing
Corpus’ attorneys described the process as unfair and vowed to fight it in court. Lead attorney Thomas Mazzucco said they would immediately seek an injunction to block further proceedings.
During his remarks to supervisors before the vote, Mazzucco objected to the participation of Supervisors Ray Mueller and Noelia Corzo, who had previously urged Corpus’ resignation. He contended Mueller and Corzo should have recused themselves, and noted that without their votes, the board would lack the four-fifths majority required to remove Corpus.
He also said the county charter amendment, which empowers the board to remove an elected sheriff until 2028, only became effective on April 19 and therefore cannot be applied retroactively to conduct last year.
Supervisors did not respond to the objections raised by Corpus’ legal team during the meeting.
Under the process outlined in the charter amendment, Corpus will have five days from receiving the notice to request a pre-removal conference, where Corpus will be given the opportunity to address the allegations against her, according to County Attorney John Nibbelin. That meeting would be held with the county’s chief probation officer and recorded, unless there is an objection.
Following that, the probation officer would issue a written recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on whether to remove Corpus. The board would then meet “as soon as practicable” to vote on her removal.
A four-fifths vote would be required. If the board votes to remove her, the decision is subject to appeal. That hearing would take place before a hearing officer and would be public unless the sheriff requests it be closed.
Corpus’ legal team also opposed the public release of the notice of intent, which details the allegations against her, citing her rights under the Peace Officers Bill of Rights. The board granted this request.
Several residents who spoke during a public comment period called for the allegations to be made public. Mazzucco said the team had not yet reviewed the full document and would release details “at the appropriate time.”
Supervisors did not address the public following the meeting.
Tensions between Corpus and county leadership have simmered for months, with multiple lawsuits and legal claims filed by both sides.
Corpus, elected in 2022, filed a lawsuit seeking access to documents related to the Cordell report and commissioned a separate review by retired Riverside County Superior Court Judge Burke E. Strunsky. That review criticized the Cordell investigation for relying heavily on anonymous sources and unrecorded interviews, arguing it failed to adequately assess witness credibility.
If Corpus is successful in obtaining a court injunction, it could delay an already drawn-out and costly process. County staff previously estimated the removal proceedings could take up to four months.
The March special election that authorized the board’s removal power cost county taxpayers more than $4 million, not including consultant fees and other expenses related to the investigation, according to the county.
