27
General Election ~ November 4, 2014 Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review 43 JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS Who Judges the Judges .................................................................................................... PAGE 44 Statewide Arizona Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal Judges Summary – Appellate Courts ................................................................................ PAGE 45 Judges Details – Appellate Courts...................................................................................... PAGE 46 Trial Courts by County Judges Summary – Pinal County Superior Court .............................................................. PAGE 48 Judges Details – Pinal County Superior Court .................................................................. PAGE 49 Judges Summary – Pima County Superior Court .............................................................. PAGE 51 Judges Details – Pima County Superior Court .................................................................. PAGE 52 Judges Summary – Maricopa County Superior Court ....................................................... PAGE 55 Judges Details – Maricopa County Superior Court ............................................................ PAGE 58 JPR Voter Checklist ........................................................................................................... PAGE 76

JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

General Election ~ November 4, 2014

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

JUD

ICIAL PERFO

RM

ANCE R

EVIEW

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review43

JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS

Who Judges the Judges .................................................................................................... PAGE 44

Statewide Arizona Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal

Judges Summary – Appellate Courts ................................................................................ PAGE 45

Judges Details – Appellate Courts......................................................................................PAGE 46

Trial Courts by County

Judges Summary – Pinal County Superior Court .............................................................. PAGE 48

Judges Details – Pinal County Superior Court .................................................................. PAGE 49

Judges Summary – Pima County Superior Court.............................................................. PAGE 51

Judges Details – Pima County Superior Court .................................................................. PAGE 52

Judges Summary – Maricopa County Superior Court ....................................................... PAGE 55

Judges Details – Maricopa County Superior Court............................................................ PAGE 58

JPR Voter Checklist........................................................................................................... PAGE 76

Page 2: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

General Election ~ November 4, 2014

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review

JUD

ICIA

L PE

RFO

RM

ANCE

REV

IEW

44

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. Whilejudges initially are appointed, this report can help you decide whether these judges meet judicial performancestandards and should be retained. Which judges appear on your ballot depends on your county and the court on whichthe 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 RetentionIn 1974, Arizona voters decided that for Arizona’s Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, and Superior Courts in countieswith populations over 250,000 (currently Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal) judges would be appointed by the Governor froma list of qualified candidates. The Arizona Constitution directs commissions to nominate candidates based primarily ontheir merit, with consideration given to the diversity of Arizona’s population. Arizona voters then periodically votewhether 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-basedperformance evaluations of judges. Most of the JPR Commissioners are public members, not lawyers or judges. JPRreports its results to the public. This report provides JPR Commission findings, survey results, and states whether eachjudge in a retention election “meets” or “fails to meet” judicial performance standards.

Judicial Performance StandardsThe JPR Commission evaluates each judge up for retention election to assess the judge’s:

Legal Ability: Decides cases based on applicable law, demonstrating competent legal analysis. Integrity: Free from personal bias. Administers justice fairly, ethically, and uniformly. Communication Skills: Issues prompt and understandable rulings and directions. Judicial Temperament: Dignified, courteous, and patient. Administrative Performance: Manages courtroom and office effectively. Issues rulings promptly and efficiently.

Public Input Throughout the ProcessThis year, as every election year, the JPR Commission sought public input from citizens who have had directexperience with judges and made its decisions using that input. In 2013, 60,000 surveys on judges were distributed toattorneys, jurors, litigants and witnesses. The JPR Commission held public hearings open to anyone wishing to speakabout 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 ChecklistEvery Voter can take an active role in this judicial review process. Use this JPR summary and report to guide yourvotes for judges up for retention. After reviewing a judge’s information, mark “Yes” or “No” next to the judge’s name onthe Judges Checklist tear-off sheet in 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 [email protected]

Page 3: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

JUDGES - SUMMARY - APPELLATE COURTS General Election ~ November 4, 2014

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIAL PERFO

RM

ANCE R

EVIEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review45

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories.

Judicial Performance Standards include: Legal Ability: Decides cases based on applicable law, demonstrating competent legal analysis. Integrity: Free from personal bias. Administers justice fairly, ethically, and uniformly. Communication Skills: Issues prompt and understandable rulings and directions. Judicial Temperament: Dignified, courteous, and patient. Administrative Performance: Manages courtroom and office effectively. Issues rulings promptly and efficiently.

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:Scott BalesRobert Brutinel

COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE:Andrew W. GouldRandall M. HoweDiane M. JohnsenPatricia A. OrozcoSamuel A. Thumma

COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO:Garye L. Vasquez

Judge

JPR Votes “Meets”Judicial

Standards

JPR Votes“Does Not Meet”

Judicial Standards

Did Not Vote

JPR Commission Member

Did Not Vote on Self

Details JPR Page

Bales, Scott 29 0 0 0 46

Brutinel, Robert 29 0 0 0 46

Gould, Andrew 29 0 0 0 46

Howe, Randall 29 0 0 0 46

Johnsen, Diane 29 0 0 0 47

Orozco, Patricia 29 0 0 0 47

Thumma, Samuel 29 0 0 0 47

Vasquez, Garye 27 0 2 0 47

Page 4: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - DETAILS - APPELLATE COURTS

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIA

L PE

RFO

RM

ANCE

REV

IEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review46

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

BALES, SCOTTAppointed toSupreme Court: 2005

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesSuperior Court

Judge Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

95%96%98%98%99%

100%100%N/AN/A

100%

BRUTINEL, ROBERTAppointed toSupreme Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesSuperior Court

Judge Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

90%99%97%99%90%

100%100%N/AN/A

100%

GOULD, ANDREWAppointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesSuperior Court

Judge Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

89%99%98%98%94%

99%100%N/AN/A

100%

HOWE, RANDALLAppointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesSuperior Court

Judge Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

94%100%100%99%94%

100%100%N/AN/A

100%

Page 5: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

JUDGES - DETAILS - APPELLATE COURTS General Election ~ November 4, 2014

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIAL PERFO

RM

ANCE R

EVIEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

47

JOHNSEN, DIANEAppointed to Court ofAppeals Division 1: 2006

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesSuperior Court

Judge Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

89%98%98%98%94%

94%90%N/AN/A95%

OROZCO, PATRICIAAppointed to Court ofAppeals Division 1: 2004

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesSuperior Court

Judge Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

89%98%98%99%91%

97%98%N/AN/A

100%

THUMMA, SAMUELAppointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesSuperior Court

Judge Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

84%100%99%100%96%

100%100%N/AN/A

100%

VASQUEZ, GARYEAppointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 2006

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS27 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards 2 Commissioners Did Not Vote

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesSuperior Court

Judge Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

88%97%97%

100%99%

97%98%N/AN/A98%

Page 6: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIA

L PE

RFO

RM

ANCE

REV

IEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review48

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories.

Judicial Performance Standards include: Legal Ability: Decides cases based on applicable law, demonstrating competent legal analysis. Integrity: Free from personal bias. Administers justice fairly, ethically, and uniformly. Communication Skills: Issues prompt and understandable rulings and directions. Judicial Temperament: Dignified, courteous, and patient. Administrative Performance: Manages courtroom and office effectively. Issues rulings promptly and efficiently.

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

Gilberto V. FigueroaSteven J. FullerBrenda E. Oldham

Daniel A. WashburnKevin D. White

JudgeJPR Votes

“Meets”Judicial Standards

JPR Votes“Does Not Meet”

Judicial Standards

Did Not Vote

JPR Commission Member

Did Not Vote on Self

Details JPR Page

Figueroa, Gilberto 29 0 0 0 49

Fuller, Steven 29 0 0 0 49

Oldham, Brenda 29 0 0 0 49

Washburn, Daniel 27 1 1 0 49

White, Kevin 28 1 0 0 50

Page 7: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

JUDGES - DETAILS - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT General Election ~ November 4, 2014

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIAL PERFO

RM

ANCE R

EVIEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

49

FIGUEROA, GILBERTOElected to Pinal County Superior Court: 1998

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

94%97%97%95%98%

N/A100%100%100%100%

FULLER, STEVENElected to Pinal County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

100%99%

100%93%

100%

N/A84%74%71%83%

OLDHAM, BRENDAElected to Pinal County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

93%96%95%93%93%

N/A100%94%95%93%

WASHBURN, DANIELElected to Pinal County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS27 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 1 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards 1 Commissioner Did Not Vote

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

86%97%78%84%94%

N/A95%95%91%97%

Page 8: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - DETAILS - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIA

L PE

RFO

RM

ANCE

REV

IEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review50

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

WHITE, KEVINElected to Pinal County Superior Court: 2005

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS28 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 1 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

83%87%76%75%69%

N/A100%100%100%100%

Page 9: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

JUDGES - SUMMARY - PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT General Election ~ November 4, 2014

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIAL PERFO

RM

ANCE R

EVIEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review51

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories.

Judicial Performance Standards include: Legal Ability: Decides cases based on applicable law, demonstrating competent legal analysis. Integrity: Free from personal bias. Administers justice fairly, ethically, and uniformly. Communication Skills: Issues prompt and understandable rulings and directions. Judicial Temperament: Dignified, courteous, and patient. Administrative Performance: Manages courtroom and office effectively. Issues rulings promptly and efficiently.

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

The following judges DO NOT MEET Judicial Performance Standards

Catherine M. Woods

The following judges MEET Judicial Performance Standards

Jeffrey T. BerginChristopher BrowningJavier Chon-LopezCharles HarringtonDanelle B. Liwski

James E. MarnerRichard D. NicholsKathleen A. QuigleyKenneth C. Stanford

Judge

JPR Votes “Meets”Judicial

Standards

JPR Votes“Does Not Meet”

Judicial Standards

Did Not Vote

JPR Commission Member

Did Not Vote on Self

Details JPR Page

Bergin, Jeffrey 29 0 0 0 52

Browning, Christopher 29 0 0 0 52

Chon-Lopez, Javier 29 0 0 0 52

Harrington, Charles 29 0 0 0 52

Liwski, Danelle 29 0 0 0 53

Marner, James 29 0 0 0 53

Nichols, Richard 29 0 0 0 53

Quigley, Kathleen 29 0 0 0 53

Stanford, Kenneth 29 0 0 0 54

Woods, Catherine 7 22 0 0 54

Page 10: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - DETAILS - PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIA

L PE

RFO

RM

ANCE

REV

IEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review52

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

BERGIN, JEFFREYAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

98%99%100%100%100%

N/A100%100%100%100%

BROWNING, CHRISTOPHERAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1998

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

94%93%96%90%99%

N/A98%97%98%98%

CHON-LOPEZ, JAVIERAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

87%100%91%96%82%

N/A99%

100%100%100%

HARRINGTON, CHARLESAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1999

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

98%99%98%97%99%

N/A96%97%94%

100%

Page 11: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

JUDGES - DETAILS - PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT General Election ~ November 4, 2014

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIAL PERFO

RM

ANCE R

EVIEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

53

LIWSKI, DANELLEAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

94%90%90%94%97%

N/A86%82%82%97%

MARNER, JAMESAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

100%99%99%98%100%

N/A100%100%100%100%

NICHOLS, RICHARDAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1995

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

94%98%96%97%99%

N/A97%96%98%98%

QUIGLEY, KATHLEENAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

100%99%100%99%100%

N/A100%100%100%100%

Page 12: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - DETAILS - PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIA

L PE

RFO

RM

ANCE

REV

IEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review54

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

STANFORD, KENNETHAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

88%93%93%93%99%

N/A100%100%100%95%

WOODS, CATHERINEAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS 7 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards22 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

80%88%76%83%82%

N/A100%100%100%100%

Page 13: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

JUDGES - SUMMARY - MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT General Election ~ November 4, 2014

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIAL PERFO

RM

ANCE R

EVIEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review55

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories.

Judicial Performance Standards include: Legal Ability: Decides cases based on applicable law, demonstrating competent legal analysis. Integrity: Free from personal bias. Administers justice fairly, ethically, and uniformly. Communication Skills: Issues prompt and understandable rulings and directions. Judicial Temperament: Dignified, courteous, and patient. Administrative Performance: Manages courtroom and office effectively. Issues rulings promptly and efficiently.

RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION’S VOTE ON THEMARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES

The following judges DO NOT MEET Judicial Performance Standards

Benjamin R. Norris

The following judges MEET Judicial Performance Standards

MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT:

Mark F. AcetoAimee L. AndersonArthur T. AndersonBradley AstrowskyCynthia J. BaileyJanet E. BartonEdward W. BassettDawn M. BerginJames T. BlomoMark H. BrainRoger E. BrodmanWilliam L. BrothertonKatherine M. CooperJanice K. CrawfordDavid O. CunananNorman J. DavisSally S. DuncanBoyd W. DunnAlfred M. FenzelDean M. FinkGeorge H. Foster, Jr.J. Richard GamaWarren J. GranvilleHugh E. HegyiMichael J. Herrod

Bethany G. HicksCarey S. HyattBrian K. IshikawaJoseph C. KreamerDaniel G. MartinRosa P. MrozSamuel J. MyersKaren L. O’ConnorSusanna C. PinedaJay PolkGerald J. PorterJohn C. ReaPeter C. ReinsteinEmmet J. RonanJoan M. SinclairPamela Hearn SvobodaDavid M. TalamanteDanielle J. ViolaRandall H. WarnerJoseph C. WeltyEileen S. Willett

Page 14: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIA

L PE

RFO

RM

ANCE

REV

IEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review56

JudgeJPR Votes

“Meets” Judicial Standards

JPR Votes“Does Not Meet”

Judicial Standards

Did Not Vote

JPR Commission Member

Did Not Vote on Self

Details JPR Page

Aceto, Mark 29 0 0 0 58

Anderson, Aimee 29 0 0 0 58

Anderson, Arthur 29 0 0 0 58

Astrowsky, Bradley 25 4 0 0 58

Bailey, Cynthia 29 0 0 0 59

Barton, Janet 29 0 0 0 59

Bassett, Edward 29 0 0 0 59

Bergin, Dawn 29 0 0 0 59

Blomo, James 29 0 0 0 60

Brain, Mark 29 0 0 0 60

Brodman, Roger 29 0 0 0 60

Brotherton, William 28 1 0 0 60

Cooper, Katherine 29 0 0 0 61

Crawford, Janice 29 0 0 0 61

Cunanan, David 29 0 0 0 61

Davis, Norman 29 0 0 0 61

Duncan, Sally 29 0 0 0 62

Dunn, Boyd 29 0 0 0 62

Fenzel, Alfred 29 0 0 0 62

Fink, Dean 29 0 0 0 62

Foster, George 28 0 0 1 63

Gama, J. Richard 29 0 0 0 63

Granville, Warren 29 0 0 0 63

Hegyi, Hugh 29 0 0 0 63

Herrod, Michael 29 0 0 0 64

Hicks, Bethany 29 0 0 0 64

Hyatt, Carey 29 0 0 0 64

Ishikawa, Brian 29 0 0 0 64

Kreamer, Joseph 29 0 0 0 65

Martin, Daniel 29 0 0 0 65

Mroz, Rosa 29 0 0 0 65

Myers, Samuel 29 0 0 0 65

Norris, Benjamin 3 25 1 0 66

O’Connor, Karen 29 0 0 0 66

Pineda, Susanna 29 0 0 0 66

Polk, Jay 29 0 0 0 66

Porter, Gerald 18 11 0 0 67

Rea, John 29 0 0 0 67

Reinstein, Peter 28 1 0 0 67

Page 15: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

JUDGES - SUMMARY - MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT General Election ~ November 4, 2014

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIAL PERFO

RM

ANCE R

EVIEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review57

JudgeJPR Votes

“Meets” Judicial Standards

JPR Votes“Does Not Meet”

Judicial Standards

Did Not Vote

JPR Commission Member

Did Not Vote on Self

Details JPR Page

Ronan, Emmet 29 0 0 0 67

Sinclair, Joan 29 0 0 0 68

Svoboda, Pamela 29 0 0 0 68

Talamante, David 29 0 0 0 68

Viola, Danielle 29 0 0 0 68

Warner, Randall 29 0 0 0 69

Welty, Joseph 29 0 0 0 69

Willett, Eileen 29 0 0 0 69

Page 16: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - DETAILS - MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIA

L PE

RFO

RM

ANCE

REV

IEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review58

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

ACETO, MARKAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1995

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

96%99%98%97%99%

N/A97%92%95%98%

ANDERSON, AIMEEAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

100%100%97%92%93%

N/A84%75%80%76%

ANDERSON, ARTHURAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

90%96%91%90%88%

N/A100%100%100%100%

ASTROWSKY, BRADLEYAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS25 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 4 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

92%92%91%77%83%

N/A100%100%100%100%

Page 17: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

JUDGES - DETAILS - MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT General Election ~ November 4, 2014

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIAL PERFO

RM

ANCE R

EVIEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

59

BAILEY, CYNTHIAAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

96%96%96%93%98%

N/A100%100%100%100%

BARTON, JANETAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

100%100%100%93%100%

N/A0%0%0%0%

BASSETT, EDWARDAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2008

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

95%100%100%96%100%

N/A94%87%94%97%

BERGIN, DAWNAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

90%99%93%94%95%

N/A100%100%100%100%

Page 18: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - DETAILS - MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIA

L PE

RFO

RM

ANCE

REV

IEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review60

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

BLOMO, JAMESAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

94%96%90%76%89%

N/A100%98%99%99%

BRAIN, MARKAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

92%99%96%96%99%

N/A100%100%100%100%

BRODMAN, ROGERAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

95%98%96%96%99%

N/A92%94%87%89%

BROTHERTON, WILLIAMAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS28 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 1 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

88%90%89%74%95%

N/A95%97%99%98%

Page 19: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

JUDGES - DETAILS - MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT General Election ~ November 4, 2014

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIAL PERFO

RM

ANCE R

EVIEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

61

COOPER, CATHERINEAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

93%99%92%98%98%

N/A98%83%88%92%

CRAWFORD, JANICEAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

98%99%97%98%99%

N/A88%86%80%82%

CUNANAN, DAVIDAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

92%96%88%92%96%

N/A97%75%75%79%

DAVIS, NORMANAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1995

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance Surveys All Respondents

Judge Davis is the Maricopa County PresidingJudge and was reviewed on administrativeduties.

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

N/A97%98%98%98%

Page 20: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - DETAILS - MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIA

L PE

RFO

RM

ANCE

REV

IEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review62

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

DUNCAN, SALLYAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2004

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

92%95%90%93%94%

N/A95%67%90%76%

DUNN, BOYDAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

90%90%84%84%84%

N/A90%91%89%88%

FENZEL, ALFREDAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

94%98%95%95%97%

N/A100%100%100%100%

FINK, DEANAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

93%98%95%99%99%

N/A100%100%100%100%

Page 21: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

JUDGES - DETAILS - MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT General Election ~ November 4, 2014

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIAL PERFO

RM

ANCE R

EVIEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

63

FOSTER, JR., GEORGEAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2003

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS28 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards 1 JPR Commission Member-Did Not Vote on Self

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

89%94%86%86%91%

N/A79%68%74%73%

GAMA, J. RICHARDAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

96%99%99%98%95%

N/A100%100%100%100%

GRANVILLE, WARRENAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

99%99%100%99%100%

N/A100%100%100%97%

HEGYI, HUGHAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

77%97%86%86%90%

N/A94%78%82%78%

Page 22: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - DETAILS - MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIA

L PE

RFO

RM

ANCE

REV

IEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review64

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

HERROD, MICHAELAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

95%98%96%99%97%

N/A100%100%100%100%

HICKS, BETHANYAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

94%95%94%95%98%

N/A90%88%91%93%

HYATT, CAREYAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

96%98%94%92%98%

N/A98%100%100%100%

ISHIKAWA, BRIANAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1995

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

95%99%95%98%97%

N/A100%99%99%100%

Page 23: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

JUDGES - DETAILS - MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT General Election ~ November 4, 2014

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIAL PERFO

RM

ANCE R

EVIEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

65

KREAMER, JOSEPHAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

96%100%100%99%99%

N/A100%100%100%100%

MARTIN, DANIELAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

90%90%91%91%94%

N/A100%100%100%100%

MROZ, ROSAAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2004

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

100%100%99%97%

100%

N/A100%100%100%100%

MYERS, SAMUELAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

97%100%96%

100%99%

N/A99%96%96%100%

Page 24: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - DETAILS - MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIA

L PE

RFO

RM

ANCE

REV

IEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review66

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

NORRIS, BENJAMINAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2008

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS 3 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards25 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards 1 Commissioner Did Not Vote

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

75%87%67%59%84%

N/A93%86%89%90%

O’CONNOR, KARENAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

92%91%94%94%98%

N/A100%100%100%100%

PINEDA, SUSANNAAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

86%99%98%96%90%

N/A100%100%100%100%

POLK, JAYAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

Responses

Litigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

95%98%94%94%96%

N/A88%80%73%67%

Page 25: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

JUDGES - DETAILS - MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT General Election ~ November 4, 2014

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIAL PERFO

RM

ANCE R

EVIEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

67

PORTER, GERALDAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS18 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards11 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

93%96%88%90%95%

N/A77%66%66%70%

REA, JOHNAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2004

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

97%100%98%99%99%

N/A100%100%100%100%

REINSTEIN, PETERAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1998

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS28 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 1 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

94%92%89%80%94%

N/A98%86%89%88%

RONAN, EMMETAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

96%98%96%97%96%

N/A99%96%99%97%

Page 26: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - DETAILS - MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIA

L PE

RFO

RM

ANCE

REV

IEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review68

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

SINCLAIR, JOANAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

94%99%98%99%84%

N/A100%98%98%99%

SVOBODA, PAMELAAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2012

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

100%100%100%100%100%

N/A92%92%92%100%

TALAMANTE, DAVIDAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

98%96%94%96%98%

N/A92%86%89%91%

VIOLA, DANIELLEAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2011

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

98%98%98%98%98%

N/A83%75%83%86%

Page 27: JUDGES TABLE OF CONTENTS - AZ SOS · 2014-09-16 · General Election ~ November 4, 2014 JUDGES - SUMMARY - PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT For More Information Visit: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

JUDGES - DETAILS - MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT General Election ~ November 4, 2014

For More Information Visit: www.azjudges.info

JUD

ICIAL PERFO

RM

ANCE R

EVIEW

Arizona 2014 Judicial Performance Review

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review

Reading This DataJudicial Performance Commission Results indicate how JPR Commissioners voted, whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial PerformanceStandards based on survey information as well as all other information submitted by the public or the judge. Judicial PerformanceSurveys percentages show results of surveys completed by respondents based on the averaged results of the survey respondentswho rated the judge “satisfactory” or better in combined Judicial Performance Standards categories. For Judicial PerformanceStandards explanation, see JPR Page 44.

69

WARNER, RANDALLAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

98%99%99%99%100%

N/A100%100%100%100%

WELTY, JOSEPHAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2007

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

100%100%100%99%100%

N/A100%100%100%100%

WILLETT, EILEENAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION RESULTS29 Commissioners Voted “Meets” Judicial Standards 0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet” Judicial Standards

Judicial Performance SurveysAttorney

ResponsesLitigant/Witness

Responses

Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative Performance

97%100%98%99%100%

N/A92%91%94%94%