HARRISBURG -- State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy's announcement yesterday that he would resign at the end of the year after 18 years on the state's highest court took many in Harrisburg by surprise.

That's because, at 64, he's well below mandatory retirement age, he wouldn't stand for retention until 2009 and he had weathered the storm that arose when he lashed back at critics of state pay raises two years ago.

"That's really a shocker," said Rep. Tom Caltagirone, D-Berks, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, of the decision to retire.

Justice Cappy disclosed his early retirement in a public statement and in a letter to Gov. Ed Rendell, who must name a successor to fill out the last two years of his term. The governor's choice will face confirmation by the state Senate in early 2008.

"The chief," as Justice Cappy was called at the court, had served nearly 30 years as a judge, including a stint on Allegheny County Common Pleas Court and 18 years on the high court.

"After years of an extremely busy work schedule, I believe it is time to go," he said in his statement.

He had a hip replaced in July, and during his recovery, "I had time for reflection. I realized that ... the time had come for me to pass on the torch. My health is still good. But I want to spend more time with my family and to pursue personal interests," he said.

After a mostly quiet tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Cappy caused a furor when he said critics of the 2005 pay raises were having a "knee-jerk" reaction. But many considered it an attack on the public uproar over the infamous, middle-of-the-night raises approved for judges, legislators and some executive branch officials, and the comment set off a sustained negative reaction to the jurist from Pittsburgh that stayed alive for months.

Some of the citizen groups that sprung up to fight the pay raises wanted Justice Cappy to step down a year or more ago, but he hung tough.

He said the pay raise issue didn't cause him to leave the court early.

"Let me be clear: The fact is that the controversy played no part in this decision," he said.

Justice Cappy never backed down on his assertion that fair and adequate pay for state jurists is needed. While "we cannot hope to have judicial salaries that compete with the private sector," he said, "we must have salaries high enough to attract and retain outstanding people as judges."

He's proud of the improvements in the Supreme Court during his five years as chief justice.

"We have modernized. We have developed new programs to better serve the people who use the courts. We have worked to address the needs of families, women and minorities in the courts. We have improved courthouse security," he said.

Justice Cappy said he will continue to serve on the University of Pittsburgh's board of trustees and on the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center board, "but otherwise, I intend to cut back on my public commitments."

The justice with the second longest tenure on the court, Ronald Castille of Philadelphia, will became chief justice in January.

There also will be other changes on the seven-member high court. Two new justices will be elected in November to replace Cynthia Baldwin of Pittsburgh and James Fitzgerald of Philadelphia, who are filling out other people's terms.

Andrew Susko, president of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, said he thought Justice Cappy had "exhibited courage in pursuing adequate compensation for judges." He said the chief justice is a "progressive, strong, innovative leader who was a staunch defender of judicial independence and fair and impartial courts."

He said Justice Cappy helped ease "the medical malpractice crisis" of a few years ago by making major changes in the "venue rule." Previously, a malpractice lawsuit against a doctor could be filed in any county in the state, but under the change, lawsuits can only be filed in the county where the alleged poor care occurred. That has cut down on the number of lawsuits.

Justice Max Baer, who has known Justice Cappy since he first ran for the Supreme Court in 1989, called him "a great chief justice and a great leader."

Justice Baer said that on past courts, justices sometimes divided up into factions, such as "East versus West, young versus old or Democrats versus Republicans. Because of Justice Cappy's leadership, those factions don't exist on this court."

G. Terry Madonna, a political science professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, said the Supreme Court has become much more visible to voters in recent years. He noted that former Justice Russell Nigro of Philadelphia was defeated in a retention election in November 2005, something which had never happened before. Former Justice Sandra Newman of Philadelphia almost lost retention that year, and then retired a year later.

And Justice Cappy has become a lightning rod for voter anger. Besides being criticized for pushing for the pay raises in July 2005, he drew more flak when the court, in 2006, upheld the raises for the state's more than 1,000 judges. Some critics thought it was a conflict of interest for the justices to rule on their own salaries.

Justice Cappy and the others on the court also drew criticism in June 2005, when the Supreme Court upheld the July 2004 slot machine law, which had been adopted in the dead of night and which opponents of gambling called "stealth legislation" because it had been inserted into another completely unrelated bill.

Not surprisingly, leaders of some of the anti-pay raise groups are glad to see Justice Cappy go.

"It should have happened three years ago," said Tim Potts of Democracy Rising PA.

"I think his resignation is long overdue," agreed Eric Epstein of Rock the Capital. He claimed the chief justice "had three strikes against him -- he was an architect of the pay raise, he applauded the Legislature for passing the pay raise and then he attacked the critics of the pay raise. His actions cast a negative shadow over the state's judiciary."

Mr. Potts contended the high court should have ruled against the pay raise bill because "it was negotiated in secret," contrary to open procedures listed in the state constitution.

That, he said, "shows a fundamental mistrust of the citizens he was supposed to serve . . ."