Statement of Charges against Judge Hinson

Here is the full text of the Statement of Charges against Judge Hinson form the Commission on Judicial (mis)Conduct.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

An investigative panel composed of members of the Commission on Judicial Conduct (Commission) has determined that there is reasonable cause to commence formal proceedings against the Respondent, Judge Howard Hinson, for misconduct in office. This statement of charges sets forth the jurisdiction of the Commission and specifies the nature of the alleged misconduct.

JURISDICTION

1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to Article 6.1, § 4 of the Arizona Constitution.

2. This Statement of Charges is filed pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Rules of the Commission on Judicial Conduct (Commission Rules).

3. Respondent served as a full-time pro tem superior court judge from 1996 until 2004. In 2004, Respondent was elected as a full-time superior court judge in Yavapai County. Respondent was serving in his capacity as a judge at all times relevant to the allegations contained herein.

4. As a judge, Respondent is and has been subject to all provisions and Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct as set forth in Supreme Court Rule 81.

COUNT I

FAILURE TO DECIDE CASES IN A TIMELY MANNER.

5. In Case 01-203, the commission informally reprimanded Respondent for failing to rule on a petition for post-conviction relief for over nine months. The Commission notified Respondent that in the future he should rule on cases at his "earliest opportunity."

6. In Case 02-018, the commission informally reprimanded Respondent for failing to rule on a different petition for post-conviction relief for eighteen months. The Commission issued a second informal reprimand stating, "your dilatory handling of this matter is unjustifiable . . . ."

7. In Case 04-059, the commission informally admonished Respondent for failing to rule on four motions in a timely manner. The admonishment noted that "Canon 3B(8) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Article 6, § 21 of the Arizona State Constitution require judges to rule on matters promptly."

8. Despite these strong and repeated warnings from the Commission, Respondent continued to fail to timely rule on cases.

9. In 2006, Respondent failed to enter timely rulings on eight cases. Although superior court judges are required to decide submitted matters within 60 days of submission pursuant to Article VI § 21 of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. §11-424.02(A) and Rule 91(e), Rules of the Supreme Court, the delays in the eight cases exceeded 60 days by 28 days, 25 days, 51 days, 66 days, 107 days, 8 days, 14 days, and 36 days.

10. In 2007, Respondent failed to enter timely rulings on nine cases, The delays in the nine cases exceeded 60 days by 23 days, 29 days, 101 days, 92 days, 23 days, 66 days, 66 days, 94 days, and 96 days.

11. In 2008, Respondent failed to enter timely rulings in eight cases. The delays in the eight cases exceeded 60 days by 91 days, 26 days, 13 days, 17 days, 27 days, 27 days, 61 days, and 16 days.

12. By repeatedly neglecting to enter timely rulings on cases, Respondent violated Canon 3 (“A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.”); specifically, Canon 3B(8) (“A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently and fairly.”); and Canon 3B(2) (“A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it."). See also, In re Braun, 180 Ariz. 240, 241, 883 P.2d 996, 997 (1994).

COUNT II

REPEATEDLY FILING FALSE AFFIDAVITS

13. A.R.S. § 12-128.01(A) provides that a judge shall not receive his salary unless the judge certifies that no cause remains pending and undetermined for sixty days after it has been submitted.

14. In 2006, Respondent filed five inaccurate monthly salary affidavits between September and December and collected paychecks for each of those months, despite not having ruled on pending cases within 60 days.

15. In 2007, Respondent filed five inaccurate monthly salary affidavits and collected paychecks for four of those months, despite not having ruled on pending cases within 60 days.

16. In 2008, Respondent filed four inaccurate monthly salary affidavits and collected paychecks for each of those months, despite not having ruled on pending cases within 60 days.

17. By signing a series of affidavits that inaccurately reflected no matters were pending and undetermined for 60 days, Respondent violated Canon 3B(2), “A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it;" as well as Canon 3B(8), “A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently and fairly.” Additionally, as set forth in In re Weeks, 134 Ariz. 521, 525, 658 P.2d 174, 178 (1983): “The signing of a series of false affidavits by a judge brings the integrity of the entire judicial system into question and is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” See also, Adv. Op. 92-10 (judge has “an ethical as well as legal obligation to apply the law”) and In re Jensen, 24 Cal.3d 72, 593 P.2d 200 (1978).

COUNT III

FAILURE TO DILIGENTLY ADMINISTER HIS COURT

18. Respondent failed to institute the proper administrative control to ensure that his cases were periodically reviewed to determine the length of pendency prior to ruling and to ensure that when he signed a certificate, that the certificate was accurate as to outstanding cases.

19. By his inaction, Respondent violated Canon 3C(1) which requires that “A judge shall diligently discharge the judge’s administrative responsibilities . . . and maintain professional competence in judicial administration . . .”; Canon 3C(2), which mandates that a judge “shall require staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge . . .”; and Canon 3B(8), “A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently and fairly.” The comment to Canon 3B(8) states “[a] judge should monitor and supervise cases so as to reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays and unnecessary costs. Prompt disposition of the court’s business requires a judge
to devote adequate time to judicial duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in
determining matters under submission, and to insist that court officials, litigants and their lawyers
cooperate with the judge to that end.” See also, In re Braun, 180 Ariz. 240, 241, 883 P.2d 996, 997
(1994).

20. A judge’s failure to decide cases or rule on motions in a timely fashion constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute and demonstrates a “willful and persistent failure to perform his duties” within the meaning of Article 6.1 § 4 of the Arizona Constitution.

21. Closed files pertaining to discipline of Respondent may be referred to and used by the Commission or by Respondent for the purpose of determining the severity of the sanction, a pattern of misconduct, or exoneration of the Judge. Commission Rule 22(e). Respondent knows of the existence of such files, all of which are delineated in this Statement of Charges.

REQUESTED RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Commission, upon conclusion of a hearing and a finding of good cause, may recommend to the Supreme Court that Respondent be publicly censured, suspended or removed from judicial office; that costs be assessed against Respondent pursuant to Commission Rule 18(e), and that the court grant such other relief as may be deemed appropriate.

Dated this 10th day of March 2009.

COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Linda Haynes
Disciplinary Counsel