Part three - 2012 Judicial Performance Review

Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review

WHO JUDGES THE JUDGES? YOU DO! WE CAN HELP.

Voters! Finish the Ballot! Use the following summary and report by the Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR) to Finish the Ballot! The JPR Commission was established by voters to evaluate judges' performance during retention elections. While judges initially are appointed, this report can help you decide whether these judges meet judicial performance standards and should be retained. Which judges appear on your ballot depends on your county and the court on which the judge serves. By using this report to finish your ballot, you will help ensure Arizona's strong and impartial judiciary!

Some Arizona judges are appointed through Merit Selection and rated by the JPR Commission.

Merit Selection and Retention. In 1974, Arizona voters decided that for Arizona's Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals, and Superior Courts in counties with populations over 250,000 (currently Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal) judges would be appointed by the Governor from a list of qualified candidates. The Arizona Constitution directs commissions to nominate candidates based primarily on their merit, with consideration given to the diversity of Arizona's population. Arizona voters then periodically vote whether to retain these judges as their terms expire. This system is known as Merit Selection and Retention.

JPR Commission Evaluations & Report. Created by a constitutional amendment, the 30-member JPR Commission conducts standards-based performance evaluations of judges. Most of the JPR Commissioners are public members, not lawyers or judges. JPR reports its results to the public. This report provides JPR Commission findings, survey results, and states whether each judge in a retention election "meets" or "fails to meet" judicial performance standards.

Judicial Performance Standards

The JPR Commission evaluates each judge up for retention election to assess whether the judge:

· Administers justice fairly, ethically, uniformly, promptly and efficiently;

· Is free from personal bias when making decisions and decides cases based on the proper application of law;

· Issues prompt rulings that can be understood and makes decisions that demonstrate competent legal analysis;

· Acts with dignity, courtesy and patience; and

· Effectively manages his or her courtroom and the administrative responsibilities of the office.

Public Input Throughout the Process. This year, as every election year, the JPR Commission sought public input from citizens who have had direct experience with judges and made its decisions using that input. In 2011, 67,000 surveys on judges were distributed to attorneys, jurors, litigants and witnesses. The JPR Commission held public hearings open to anyone wishing to speak about the judges up for retention this year. The JPR Commission accepts signed, written comments about merit-appointed judges at any time.

Use JPR Results and Checklist. Every voter can take an active role in this judicial review process. Use this JPR summary and report to guide your votes for judges up for retention. After reviewing a judge's information, mark "Yes" or "No" next to the judge's name on the Judges Checklist tear-off back cover of this pamphlet. Refer to your checklist to Finish Your Ballot!

Visit www.AZJudges.info for more information.

Contact the Commission on Judicial Performance Review: (602) 452-3311

or email jpr@courts.az.gov

ARIZONA SUPREME COURT, COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE AND COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION'S VOTE ON THE APPELLATE COURT JUSTICES AND JUDGES

THE FOLLOWING JUDGES DO NOT MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: NONE

THE FOLLOWING JUDGES MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
ARIZONA SUPREME COURT:
A. John Pelander, III

COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE:

Margaret H. Downie

Donn G. Kessler

Patricia K. Norris

Maurice Portley

Peter B. Swann

COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO:

Peter J. Eckerstrom

Philip G. Espinosa

Virginia C. Kelly

Joseph W. Howard

JUSTICE and JUDGE REVIEWS

ALL ARIZONA VOTERS VOTE ON THE FOLLOWING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

 

PELANDER, III, A. JOHN Justice Appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court: 2009
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 333 Surveys Returned: 97
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 12 Surveys Returned: 4

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)

Integrity Score (See Footnote)

Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)

Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote)

Scores

Attorney Responses 92 percent

Attorney Responses 99 percent

Attorney Responses 100 percent

Attorney Responses 100 percent

Attorney Responses 100 percent

Attorney Responses Not Applicable

Scores

Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

 


MARICOPA COUNTY VOTERS VOTE ON THE FOLLOWING COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I JUDGES

DOWNIE, MARGARET H. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2008
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 837 Surveys Returned: 184
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 182 Surveys Returned: 81

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)

Integrity Score (See Footnote)

Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)

Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote)

Scores

Attorney Responses 94 percent

Attorney Responses 100 percent

Attorney Responses 100 percent

Attorney Responses 100 percent

Attorney Responses 94 percent

Attorney Responses Not Applicable

Scores

Superior Court Judge Responses 97 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses 98 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses 96 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

KESSLER, DONN G. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2003
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 1,392 Surveys Returned: 187
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 345 Surveys Returned: 90

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)

Integrity Score (See Footnote)

Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)

Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote)

Scores

Attorney Responses 91 percent

Attorney Responses 95 percent

Attorney Responses 99 percent

Attorney Responses 100 percent

Attorney Responses 99 percent

Attorney Responses Not Applicable

Scores

Superior Court Judge Responses 97 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses 96 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

NORRIS, PATRICIA K. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2003
29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 1,305 Surveys Returned: 197
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 322 Surveys Returned: 72
Note: Judge Norris is a member of the JPR Commission who could not vote on her own performance finding.

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)

Integrity Score (See Footnote)

Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)

Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote)

Scores

Attorney Responses 96 percent

Attorney Responses 99 percent

Attorney Responses 98 percent

Attorney Responses 100 percent

Attorney Responses 99 percent

Attorney Responses Not Applicable

Scores

Superior Court Judge Responses 96 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses 94 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses 98 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

PORTLEY, MAURICE Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2003
29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 1,416 Surveys Returned: 192
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 340 Surveys Returned: 74

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)

Integrity Score (See Footnote)

Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)

Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote)

Scores

Attorney Responses 88 percent

Attorney Responses 100 percent

Attorney Responses 98 percent

Attorney Responses 99 percent

Attorney Responses 100 percent

Attorney Responses Not Applicable

Scores

Superior Court Judge Responses 94 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses 97 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

 

SWANN, PETER B. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2008
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 913 Surveys Returned: 238
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 186 Surveys Returned: 79

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)

Integrity Score (See Footnote)

Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)

Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote)

Scores

Attorney Responses 85 percent

Attorney Responses 98 percent

Attorney Responses 98 percent

Attorney Responses 93 percent

Attorney Responses 96 percent

Attorney Responses Not Applicable

Scores

Superior Court Judge Responses 94 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

 

PIMA COUNTY VOTERS VOTE ON THE FOLLOWING COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II JUDGES

ECKERSTROM, PETER J. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 2003
29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 967 Surveys Returned: 218
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 333 Surveys Returned: 93

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)

Integrity Score (See Footnote)

Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)

Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote)

Scores

Attorney Responses 76 percent

Attorney Responses 95 percent

Attorney Responses 94 percent

Attorney Responses 97 percent

Attorney Responses 98 percent

Attorney Responses Not Applicable

Scores

Superior Court Judge Responses 98 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

ESPINOSA, PHILIP G. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 1992
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 1,006 Surveys Returned: 215
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 328 Surveys Returned: 103

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)

Integrity Score (See Footnote)

Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)

Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote)

Scores

Attorney Responses 91 percent

Attorney Responses 95 percent

Attorney Responses 92 percent

Attorney Responses 94 percent

Attorney Responses 100 percent

Attorney ResponsesNot Applicable

Scores

Superior Court Judge Responses 92 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses 95 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses 86 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

 

KELLY, VIRGINIA C. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 2009
28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
2 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 352 Surveys Returned: 153
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 122 Surveys Returned:101

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)

Integrity Score (See Footnote)

Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)

Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote)

Scores

Attorney Responses 91 percent

Attorney Responses 98 percent

Attorney Responses 94 percent

Attorney Responses 98 percent

Attorney Responses 100 percent

Attorney Responses Not Applicable

Scores

Superior Court Judge Responses 93 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses 93 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

COCHISE/GILA/GRAHAM/GREENLEE/PINAL/SANTA CRUZ COUNTY VOTERS VOTE ON THE FOLLOWING COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II JUDGE

HOWARD, JOSEPH W. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 1997
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 1,142 Surveys Returned: 197
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 390 Surveys Returned: 156

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)

Integrity Score (See Footnote)

Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)

Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote)

Scores

Attorney Responses 90 percent

Attorney Responses 92 percent

Attorney Responses 97 percent

Attorney Responses 98 percent

Attorney Responses 97 percent

Attorney Responses Not Applicable

Scores

Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent

Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable

PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - PINAL COUNTY VOTERS ONLY

RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION'S VOTE ON THE PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES

THE FOLLOWING JUDGES DO NOT MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:

NONE

THE FOLLOWING JUDGES MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:

J. Rudy Georgini

Boyd T. Johnson

Stephen F. McCarville

Robert Carter Olson

 

GEORGINI, J. RUDY Assignment During Survey Period: Civil/Criminal Elected to Pinal County Superior Court: 2006
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 87 Surveys Returned: 28
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses Surveys Distributed: 77 Surveys Returned: 26
Juror Responses Surveys Distributed: 43 Surveys Returned: 11

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories

Scores

Scores

Scores

Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)

Integrity Score (See Footnote)

Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)

Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)

Settlement Activities Score (See Footnote)

Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote)

Attorney Responses 96 percent

Attorney Responses 99 percent

Attorney Responses 100 percent

Attorney Responses 100 percent

Attorney Responses 98 percent

Attorney Responses 100 percent

Attorney Responses Not Applicable

Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses Not Applicable

Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses 100 percent

Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses 100 percent

Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses 99 percent

Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses 95 percent

Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses Not Applicable

Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses Not Applicable

Juror Responses Not Applicable

Juror Responses 100 percent

Juror Responses 100 percent

Juror Responses 100 percent

Juror Responses 100 percent

Juror Responses Not Applicable

Juror Responses Not Applicable

 

JOHNSON, BOYD T.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil/Criminal Presiding

Elected to Pinal County Superior Court: 1996

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Presiding Judge
Responses

Surveys Distributed: 11

Surveys Returned: 5

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 75

Surveys Returned: 28

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 40

Surveys Returned: 3

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 58

Surveys Returned: 35

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

95 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

100 percent

Score (See Footnote)

98 percent

100 percent

99 percent

90 percent

96 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

96 percent

99 percent

93 percent

89 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

MCCARVILLE, STEPHEN F.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family Presiding

Elected to Pinal County Superior Court: 2001

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Presiding Judge
Responses

Surveys Distributed: 4

Surveys Returned: 2

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 72

Surveys Returned: 25

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 291

Surveys Returned: 29

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

100 percent

Score (See Footnote)

95 percent

99 percent

96 percent

98 percent

95 percent

93 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

94 percent

91 percent

86 percent

88 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

OLSON, ROBERT CARTER

Assignment During Survey Period: Pinal County Presiding Judge

Elected to Pinal County Superior Court: 2007

29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

Note: Judge Olson is a member of the JPR Commission who could not vote on his own performance finding.

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Presiding Judge
Responses

Surveys Distributed: 42

Surveys Returned: 16

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 207

Surveys Returned: 60

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 51

Surveys Returned: 13

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

96 percent

96 percent

95 percent

93 percent

Not Applicable

95 percent

Score (See Footnote)

97 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

98 percent

95 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

97 percent

92 percent

96 percent

97 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

 

 

PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - PIMA COUNTY VOTERS ONLY

 

 

RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION'S VOTE ON THE PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES

 

 

THE FOLLOWING JUDGES DO NOT MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:

NONE

THE FOLLOWING JUDGES MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:

 

 

Karen S. Adam

Gus Aragon, Jr.

Deborah Bernini

Kyle A. Bryson

Carmine Cornelio

Jane L. Eikleberry

Richard S. Fields

Richard Gordon

Howard Hantman

Jan E. Kearney

Kenneth Lee

Leslie B. Miller

Michael Miller

Scott H. Rash

Sarah R. Simmons

Christopher P. Staring

Paul E. Tang

Stephen C. Villarreal

 

 

 

 

 

 

PIMA COUNTY JUDGE REVIEWS

ADAM, KAREN S.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile Presiding

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2010

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Presiding Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 14

Surveys Returned: 6

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 107

Surveys Returned: 24

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 134

Surveys Returned: 36

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

100 percent

Score (See Footnote)

99 percent

95 percent

96 percent

87 percent

95 percent

76 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

97 percent

98 percent

99 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

 

 

ARAGON, JR., GUS

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2006

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 126

Surveys Returned: 19

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 128

Surveys Returned: 17

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

95 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

98 percent

97 percent

95 percent

96 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

 

BERNINI, DEBORAH

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1997

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 229

Surveys Returned: 84

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 184

Surveys Returned: 36

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed:100

Surveys Returned: 30

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

99 percent

100 percent

99 percent

95 percent

99 percent

97 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

97 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

BRYSON, KYLE A.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2010

29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 180

Surveys Returned: 54

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 74

Surveys Returned: 9

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 20

Surveys Returned: 7

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

94 percent

99 percent

95 percent

100 percent

98 percent

93 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

86 percent

94 percent

89 percent

91 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

CORNELIO, CARMINE

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2002

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet"

1 Commissioner Voted "Not Voting"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 142

Surveys Returned: 67

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 162

Surveys Returned: 27

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

98 percent

93 percent

90 percent

78 percent

94 percent

86 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

88 percent

83 percent

75 percent

87 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

EIKLEBERRY, JANE L.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2001

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 194

Surveys Returned: 64

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 184

Surveys Returned: 41

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 80

Surveys Returned: 50

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

94 percent

98 percent

96 percent

95 percent

100 percent

89 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

95 percent

99 percent

99 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

99 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

FIELDS, RICHARD S.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal Presiding

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1997

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Presiding Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 12

Surveys Returned: 7

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 116

Surveys Returned: 74

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 130

Surveys Returned: 36

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 68

Surveys Returned: 26

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

100 percent

Score (See Footnote)

97 percent

99 percent

99 percent

99 percent

99 percent

97 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

98 percent

99 percent

99 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

99 percent

99 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

GORDON, RICHARD

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil Presiding

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2009

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Presiding Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 9

Surveys Returned: 7

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 253

Surveys Returned:102

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 71

Surveys Returned: 15

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 9

Surveys Returned: 4

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

96 percent

96 percent

98 percent

Not Applicable

97 percent

Score (See Footnote)

100 percent

99 percent

100 percent

99 percent

98 percent

97 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

96 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

HANTMAN, HOWARD

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1994

29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 139

Surveys Returned: 57

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 297

Surveys Returned: 33

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

98 percent

99 percent

93 percent

93 percent

98 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

82 percent

68 percent

70 percent

79 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

KEARNEY, JAN E.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2001

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 183

Surveys Returned: 46

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 92

Surveys Returned: 20

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 41

Surveys Returned: 35

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

98 percent

100 percent

98 percent

98 percent

100 percent

99 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

96 percent

97 percent

96 percent

95 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

LEE, KENNETH

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil Presiding

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1997

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Presiding Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 54

Surveys Returned: 32

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 156

Surveys Returned: 57

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 26

Surveys Returned: 5

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 39

Surveys Returned: 33

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

98 percent

97 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

99 percent

Score (See Footnote)

93 percent

98 percent

93 percent

94 percent

99 percent

82 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

99 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

MILLER, LESLIE B.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1985

23 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

7 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 81

Surveys Returned: 23

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 194

Surveys Returned: 46

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

91 percent

84 percent

80 percent

64 percent

89 percent

60 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

99 percent

96 percent

96 percent

99 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

MILLER, MICHAEL

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2002

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 213

Surveys Returned: 59

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 123

Surveys Returned: 39

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed:124

Surveys Returned: 97

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

95 percent

100 percent

95 percent

100 percent

99 percent

93 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

97 percent

98 percent

97 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

99 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

 

RASH, SCOTT H.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2010

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 190

Surveys Returned: 75

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 33

Surveys Returned: 0

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 8

Surveys Returned: 2

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

96 percent

100 percent

97 percent

98 percent

99 percent

86 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable
Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

SIMMONS, SARAH R.

Assignment During Survey Period: Pima County Presiding Judge

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2006

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Presiding Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 94

Surveys Returned: 47

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 29

Surveys Returned: 9

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 36

Surveys Returned: 7

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 9

Surveys Returned: 4

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

99 percent

99 percent

99 percent

98 percent

Not Applicable

100 percent

Score (See Footnote)

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

STARING, CHRISTOPHER P.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2010

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Note: Judge Staring is a member of the JPR Commission who could not vote on his own performance finding.

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 90

Surveys Returned: 20

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 211

Surveys Returned: 44

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

100 percent

100 percent

99 percent

99 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

99 percent

94 percent

94 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

TANG, PAUL E.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2001

29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed:169

Surveys Returned: 49

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 45

Surveys Returned: 5

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 68

Surveys Returned: 12

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

89 percent

97 percent

90 percent

89 percent

99 percent

93 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

VILLARREAL, STEPHEN C.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1998

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 206

Surveys Returned: 72

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 58

Surveys Returned: 9

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 56

Surveys Returned: 33

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

97 percent

98 percent

96 percent

95 percent

97 percent

85 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

98 percent

94 percent

98 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

 

 

RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION'S VOTE ON THE MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES

THE FOLLOWING JUDGES DO NOT MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:

NONE

THE FOLLOWING JUDGES MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:

 

 

Helene F. Abrams

Eddward P. Ballinger, Jr.

James P. Beene

A. Craig Blakey, II

Susan M. Brnovich

John A. Buttrick

Bruce R. Cohen

Connie Contes

Christopher A. Coury

Glenn Davis

John R. Ditsworth

Lisa Flores

Jeanne M. Garcia

David B. Gass

Pamela Gates

Jo Lynn Gentry-Lewis

Douglas Gerlach

Michael D. Gordon

John R. Hannah, Jr.

Cari A. Harrison

Kristin Hoffman

Michael Kemp

Daniel J. Kiley

Andrew G. Klein

Thomas L. LeClaire

Margaret R. Mahoney

Crane McClennen

M. Scott McCoy

Paul J. McMurdie

Colleen A. McNally

Michael R. McVey

Linda H. Miles

Robert E. Miles

Robert H. Oberbillig

Jose S. Padilla

David J. Palmer

Karen A. Potts

Timothy J. Ryan

Teresa A. Sanders

Roland J. Steinle, III

Sherry K. Stephens

Peter A. Thompson

David K. Udall

Christopher T. Whitten

 

 

 

 

 


MARICOPA COUNTY JUDGE REVIEWS

ABRAMS, HELENE F.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 103

Surveys Returned: 18

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 448

Surveys Returned: 47

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

90 percent

96 percent

98 percent

95 percent

95 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

98 percent

91 percent

94 percent

91 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

BALLINGER, JR., EDDWARD P.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile Presiding

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1998

29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

Note: Judge Ballinger is a member of the JPR Commission who could not vote on his own performance finding.

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Presiding Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 189

Surveys Returned: 75

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 81

Surveys Returned: 16

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 78

Surveys Returned: 11

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

99 percent

99 percent

98 percent

Not Applicable

99 percent

Score (See Footnote)

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

99 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

BEENE, JAMES P.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2009

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 157

Surveys Returned: 48

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 377

Surveys Returned: 12

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

99 percent

99 percent

97 percent

98 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

98 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

BLAKEY, II, A. CRAIG

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2002

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 130

Surveys Returned: 37

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 566

Surveys Returned: 68

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

98 percent

96 percent

96 percent

81 percent

85 percent

89 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

97 percent

94 percent

97 percent

94 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

BRNOVICH, SUSAN M.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2009

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 235

Surveys Returned: 43

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 100

Surveys Returned: 17

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 28

Surveys Returned: 19

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

96 percent

96 percent

94 percent

97 percent

97 percent

97 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

BUTTRICK, JOHN A.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 441

Surveys Returned: 138

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 56

Surveys Returned: 11

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 17

Surveys Returned: 4

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

97 percent

99 percent

98 percent

99 percent

98 percent

90 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

98 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

COHEN, BRUCE R.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 177

Surveys Returned: 34

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 40

Surveys Returned: 11

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 42

Surveys Returned: 8

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

96 percent

100 percent

99 percent

99 percent

99 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

83 percent

89 percent

92 percent

89 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

CONTES, CONNIE

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2002

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet"

1 Commissioner Voted "Not Voting"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 277

Surveys Returned: 37

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 51

Surveys Returned: 18

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 77

Surveys Returned: 15

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

78 percent

94 percent

81 percent

90 percent

80 percent

83 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

99 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

93 percent

100 percent

96 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

COURY, CHRISTOPHER A.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2010

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 119

Surveys Returned: 36

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 284

Surveys Returned: 67

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

97 percent

99 percent

97 percent

97 percent

98 percent

90 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

DAVIS, GLENN

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2006

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 109

Surveys Returned: 27

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 233

Surveys Returned: 29

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

96 percent

97 percent

96 percent

98 percent

97 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

91 percent

92 percent

90 percent

93 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

DITSWORTH, JOHN R.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 285

Surveys Returned: 75

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 47

Surveys Returned: 9

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 27

Surveys Returned: 21

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

77 percent

97 percent

83 percent

94 percent

95 percent

82 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

94 percent

86 percent

87 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

FLORES, LISA

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005

29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 216

Surveys Returned: 21

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 31

Surveys Returned: 7

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 103

Surveys Returned: 54

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

67 percent

96 percent

78 percent

81 percent

86 percent

90 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

92 percent

84 percent

86 percent

86 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

99 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

GARCIA, JEANNE M.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 256

Surveys Returned: 49

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 35

Surveys Returned: 3

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 20

Surveys Returned: 9

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

70 percent

97 percent

84 percent

91 percent

85 percent

94 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

 

GASS, DAVID B.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2009

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 120

Surveys Returned: 37

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 331

Surveys Returned: 33

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

96 percent

98 percent

95 percent

98 percent

95 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

85 percent

75 percent

76 percent

84 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

GATES, PAMELA

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2009

29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

1 Commissioner Voted "Not Voting"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 123

Surveys Returned: 44

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 215

Surveys Returned: 21

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

97 percent

97 percent

98 percent

97 percent

98 percent

95 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

81 percent

88 percent

81 percent

87 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

GENTRY-LEWIS, JO LYNN

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 103

Surveys Returned: 31

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 337

Surveys Returned: 46

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

95 percent

94 percent

94 percent

82 percent

97 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

99 percent

94 percent

94 percent

97 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

 

GERLACH, DOUGLAS

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2010

29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Note: Judge Gerlach is a member of the JPR Commission who could not vote on his own performance finding.

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 140

Surveys Returned: 36

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 249

Surveys Returned: 32

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

96 percent

95 percent

89 percent

92 percent

93 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

93 percent

83 percent

85 percent

86 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

GORDON, MICHAEL D.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005

29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

1 Commissioner Voted "Not Voting"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 215

Surveys Returned: 70

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 566

Surveys Returned: 34

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

97 percent

98 percent

96 percent

99 percent

94 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

93 percent

86 percent

91 percent

90 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

HANNAH, JR., JOHN R.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005

20 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

10 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 201

Surveys Returned: 47

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 332

Surveys Returned: 8

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

80 percent

96 percent

87 percent

87 percent

91 percent

77 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

82 percent

82 percent

83 percent

80 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

HARRISON, CARI A.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 207

Surveys Returned: 38

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 79

Surveys Returned: 11

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 56

Surveys Returned: 22

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

88 percent

99 percent

91 percent

93 percent

93 percent

82 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

97 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

HOFFMAN, KRISTIN

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2006

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 329

Surveys Returned: 60

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 63

Surveys Returned: 11

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 62

Surveys Returned: 39

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

89 percent

100 percent

98 percent

98 percent

98 percent

97 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

99 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

KEMP, MICHAEL

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 108

Surveys Returned: 23

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 246

Surveys Returned: 17

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

94 percent

97 percent

93 percent

96 percent

97 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

88 percent

82 percent

89 percent

96 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

 

KILEY, DANIEL J.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2010

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 137

Surveys Returned: 33

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 283

Surveys Returned: 16

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

98 percent

99 percent

98 percent

100 percent

99 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

KLEIN, ANDREW G.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 68

Surveys Returned: 17

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 37

Surveys Returned: 8

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 9

Surveys Returned: 5

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

99 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

96 percent

99 percent

95 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

LECLAIRE, THOMAS L.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2010

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

2 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 190

Surveys Returned: 59

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 479

Surveys Returned: 15

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

81 percent

88 percent

83 percent

83 percent

86 percent

76 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

84 percent

72 percent

67 percent

80 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

 

MAHONEY, MARGARET R.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2002

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 117

Surveys Returned: 35

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 342

Surveys Returned: 43

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

91 percent

98 percent

92 percent

87 percent

76 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

98 percent

94 percent

98 percent

94 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

MCCLENNEN, CRANE

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1997

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 63

Surveys Returned: 26

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 4

Surveys Returned: 3

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

95 percent

94 percent

93 percent

93 percent

97 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

MCCOY, M. SCOTT

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2009

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 79

Surveys Returned: 17

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 273

Surveys Returned: 8

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

83 percent

85 percent

73 percent

84 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

MCMURDIE, PAUL J.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2006

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 194

Surveys Returned: 40

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 48

Surveys Returned: 10

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 63

Surveys Returned: 15

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

100 percent

100 percent

99 percent

98 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

MCNALLY, COLLEEN A.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 113

Surveys Returned: 33

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 624

Surveys Returned: 28

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

91 percent

98 percent

91 percent

81 percent

84 percent

83 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

99 percent

96 percent

91 percent

92 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

MCVEY, MICHAEL R.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1993

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 8

Surveys Returned: 2

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 44

Surveys Returned: 14

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 41

Surveys Returned: 5

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

100 percent

91 percent

100 percent

70 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

92 percent

95 percent

92 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

MILES, LINDA H.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 226

Surveys Returned: 53

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 36

Surveys Returned: 5

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 16

Surveys Returned: 9

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

94 percent

99 percent

94 percent

95 percent

95 percent

91 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

96 percent

100 percent

96 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

MILES, ROBERT E.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 230

Surveys Returned: 20

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 44

Surveys Returned: 4

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 49

Surveys Returned: 52

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

92 percent

99 percent

99 percent

96 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

OBERBILLIG, ROBERT H.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil Presiding

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1998

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Presiding Judge Responses

Surveys Distributed: 39

Surveys Returned: 13

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 217

Surveys Returned: 86

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 45

Surveys Returned: 6

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 36

Surveys Returned: 12

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

100 percent

Score (See Footnote)

99 percent

98 percent

98 percent

97 percent

100 percent

98 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

96 percent

99 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

PADILLA, JOSE S.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005

22 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

8 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 145

Surveys Returned: 30

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 195

Surveys Returned: 21

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 10

Surveys Returned: 7

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

82 percent

95 percent

85 percent

85 percent

92 percent

92 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

81 percent

67 percent

70 percent

84 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

PALMER, DAVID J.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2009

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 146

Surveys Returned: 36

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 338

Surveys Returned: 40

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

98 percent

99 percent

97 percent

100 percent

95 percent

92 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

89 percent

84 percent

90 percent

86 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

POTTS, KAREN A.

Assignment During Survey Period: Civil

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2006

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 197

Surveys Returned: 46

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 51

Surveys Returned: 9

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 25

Surveys Returned: 10

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

92 percent

94 percent

91 percent

90 percent

96 percent

83 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

87 percent

85 percent

95 percent

97 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

99 percent

100 percent

100 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

RYAN, TIMOTHY J.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005

29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

1 Commissioner Voted "Not Voting"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 122

Surveys Returned: 42

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 428

Surveys Returned: 22

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

95 percent

97 percent

92 percent

97 percent

96 percent

92 percent

Not Applicable
Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

84 percent

70 percent

79 percent

85 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

SANDERS, TERESA A.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 136

Surveys Returned: 43

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 247

Surveys Returned: 34

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

99 percent

99 percent

100 percent

100 percent

97 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

94 percent

92 percent

90 percent

91 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

STEINLE, III, ROLAND J.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 127

Surveys Returned: 32

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 249

Surveys Returned: 28

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

94 percent

99 percent

89 percent

85 percent

95 percent

90 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

85 percent

91 percent

95 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

STEPHENS, SHERRY K.

Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 319

Surveys Returned: 49

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 89

Surveys Returned: 14

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 39

Surveys Returned: 25

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

95 percent

100 percent

98 percent

98 percent

96 percent

98 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

96 percent

99 percent

98 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

99 percent

100 percent

96 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

THOMPSON, PETER A.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2010

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 104

Surveys Returned: 28

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 207

Surveys Returned: 27

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

99 percent

97 percent

99 percent

99 percent

93 percent

99 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

98 percent

100 percent

97 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

UDALL, DAVID K.

Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 104

Surveys Returned: 30

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 365

Surveys Returned: 57

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

100 percent

98 percent

100 percent

99 percent

99 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

99 percent

97 percent

98 percent

98 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

 

WHITTEN, CHRISTOPHER T.

Assignment During Survey Period: Family

Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2006

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories

Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 120

Surveys Returned: 29

Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses

Surveys Distributed: 292

Surveys Returned: 14

Juror Responses

Surveys Distributed: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills

Score (See Footnote)

97 percent

99 percent

97 percent

97 percent

98 percent

100 percent

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

100 percent

95 percent

100 percent

98 percent

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Score (See Footnote)

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable


FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories.
Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by Not Applicable (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).
The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.
Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.


Back to the Table of Contents