Arizona Secretary of State - Ken Bennett


 
Arizona Secretary of State Logo AZ.gov Arizona's Official Web Site

Table of Contents
FREE Voter's Guide - Take to the polls
E-Book (pdf)

Quick Links

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

204

    
Back Next

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/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"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories
Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 333

Surveys Returned: 97
Superior Court Judge
Responses

Surveys Distributed: 12

Surveys Returned: 4

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Administrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)

92%

99%

100%

100%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

100%

100%

N/A

N/A

100%

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories
Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 837

Surveys Returned: 184
Superior Court Judge
Responses

Surveys Distributed: 182

Surveys Returned: 81

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Administrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)

94%

100%

100%

100%

94%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

97%

98%

N/A

N/A

96%

N/A


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 N/A (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.

KESSLER, DONN G.

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2003

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories
Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 1,392

Surveys Returned: 187
Superior Court Judge
Responses

Surveys Distributed: 345

Surveys Returned: 90

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Administrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)

91%

95%

99%

100%

99%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

97%

96%

N/A

N/A

100%

N/A


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 N/A (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.

NORRIS, PATRICIA K.

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2003

29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

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

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories
Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 1,305

Surveys Returned: 197
Superior Court Judge
Responses

Surveys Distributed: 322

Surveys Returned: 72

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Administrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)

96%

99%

98%

100%

99%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

96%

94%

N/A

N/A

98%

N/A

 


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 N/A (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.

PORTLEY, MAURICE

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2003

29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories
Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 1,416

Surveys Returned: 192
Superior Court Judge
Responses

Surveys Distributed: 340

Surveys Returned: 74

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Administrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)

88%

100%

98%

99%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

94%

97%

N/A

N/A

100%

N/A


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 N/A (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.

SWANN, PETER B.

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2008

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories
Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 913

Surveys Returned: 238
Superior Court Judge
Responses

Surveys Distributed: 186

Surveys Returned: 79

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Administrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)

85%

98%

98%

93%

96%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

94%

100%

N/A

N/A

100%

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories
Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 967

Surveys Returned: 218
Superior Court Judge
Responses

Surveys Distributed: 333

Surveys Returned: 93

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Administrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)

76%

95%

94%

97%

98%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

98%

100%

N/A

N/A

100%

N/A


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 N/A (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.

ESPINOSA, PHILIP G.

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 1992

30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories
Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 1,006

Surveys Returned: 215
Superior Court Judge
Responses

Surveys Distributed: 328

Surveys Returned: 103

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Administrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)

91%

95%

92%

94%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

92%

95%

N/A

N/A

86%

N/A


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 N/A (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.

 

KELLY, VIRGINIA C.

Appointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 2009

28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"

2 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories
Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 352

Surveys Returned: 153
Superior Court Judge
Responses

Surveys Distributed: 122

Surveys Returned:101

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Administrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)

91%

98%

94%

98%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

93%

100%

N/A

N/A

93%

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories
Attorney Responses

Surveys Distributed: 1,142

Surveys Returned: 197
Superior Court Judge
Responses

Surveys Distributed: 390

Surveys Returned: 156

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Administrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)

90%

92%

97%

98%

97%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

100%

100%

N/A

N/A

100%

N/A

 

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"

 

Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories
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

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

Administrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)

96%

99%

100%

100%

98%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

99%

95%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

 

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)

N/A

100%

100%

95%

100%

N/A

100%
Score (See Footnote)

98%

100%

99%

90%

96%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

96%

99%

93%

89%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

100%
Score (See Footnote)

95%

99%

96%

98%

95%

93%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

94%

91%

86%

88%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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)

N/A

96%

96%

95%

93%

N/A

95%
Score (See Footnote)

97%

100%

100%

100%

98%

95%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

97%

92%

96%

97%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

 

 

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)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

100%
Score (See Footnote)

99%

95%

96%

87%

95%

76%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

97%

98%

99%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 


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 N/A (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.

 

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%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

98%

97%

95%

96%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

 

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%

100%

99%

95%

99%

97%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

97%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

99%

95%

100%

98%

93%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

86%

94%

89%

91%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

93%

90%

78%

94%

86%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

88%

83%

75%

87%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

98%

96%

95%

100%

89%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

95%

99%

99%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

99%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

100%
Score (See Footnote)

97%

99%

99%

99%

99%

97%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

98%

99%

99%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

99%

99%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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)

N/A

100%

96%

96%

98%

N/A

97%
Score (See Footnote)

100%

99%

100%

99%

98%

97%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

96%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

99%

93%

93%

98%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

82%

68%

70%

79%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

100%

98%

98%

100%

99%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

96%

97%

96%

95%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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)

N/A

100%

98%

97%

100%

N/A

99%
Score (See Footnote)

93%

98%

93%

94%

99%

82%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

99%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

84%

80%

64%

89%

60%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

96%

96%

99%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

100%

95%

100%

99%

93%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

97%

98%

97%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

99%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

 

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%

100%

97%

98%

99%

86%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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)

N/A

99%

99%

99%

98%

N/A

100%
Score (See Footnote)

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

100%

99%

99%

100%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

94%

94%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

97%

90%

89%

99%

93%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

98%

96%

95%

97%

85%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

98%

94%

98%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

 

 

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%

96%

98%

95%

95%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

98%

91%

94%

91%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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)

N/A

100%

99%

99%

98%

N/A

99%
Score (See Footnote)

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

99%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

99%

97%

98%

100%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

98%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

96%

96%

81%

85%

89%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

97%

94%

97%

94%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

96%

94%

97%

97%

97%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

99%

98%

99%

98%

90%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

98%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

100%

99%

99%

99%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

83%

89%

92%

89%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

94%

81%

90%

80%

83%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

93%

100%

96%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

99%

97%

97%

98%

90%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

97%

96%

98%

97%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

91%

92%

90%

93%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

97%

83%

94%

95%

82%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

94%

86%

87%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

96%

78%

81%

86%

90%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

92%

84%

86%

86%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

99%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

97%

84%

91%

85%

94%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

 

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%

98%

95%

98%

95%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

85%

75%

76%

84%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

97%

98%

97%

98%

95%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

81%

88%

81%

87%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

94%

94%

82%

97%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

94%

94%

97%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

 

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%

95%

89%

92%

93%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

93%

83%

85%

86%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

98%

96%

99%

94%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

93%

86%

91%

90%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

96%

87%

87%

91%

77%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

82%

82%

83%

80%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

99%

91%

93%

93%

82%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

97%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

100%

98%

98%

98%

97%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

99%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

97%

93%

96%

97%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

88%

82%

89%

96%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

 

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%

99%

98%

100%

99%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

100%

100%

100%

99%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

96%

99%

95%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

88%

83%

83%

86%

76%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

84%

72%

67%

80%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

 

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%

98%

92%

87%

76%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

98%

94%

98%

94%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

94%

93%

93%

97%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

83%

85%

73%

84%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

100%

99%

98%

100%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

98%

91%

81%

84%

83%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

96%

91%

92%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

91%

100%

70%

100%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

92%

95%

92%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

99%

94%

95%

95%

91%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

96%

100%

96%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

99%

99%

96%

100%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

100%
Score (See Footnote)

99%

98%

98%

97%

100%

98%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

96%

99%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

95%

85%

85%

92%

92%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

81%

67%

70%

84%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

99%

97%

100%

95%

92%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

89%

84%

90%

86%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

94%

91%

90%

96%

83%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

87%

85%

95%

97%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

97%

92%

97%

96%

92%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

84%

70%

79%

85%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

99%

100%

100%

97%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

94%

92%

90%

91%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

99%

89%

85%

95%

90%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

85%

91%

95%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

100%

98%

98%

96%

98%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

96%

99%

98%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

99%

100%

96%

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

97%

99%

99%

93%

99%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

98%

100%

97%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

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%

98%

100%

99%

99%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

99%

97%

98%

98%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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.

 

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%

99%

97%

97%

98%

100%

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

100%

95%

100%

98%

N/A

N/A
Score (See Footnote)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


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 N/A (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 Next

The Ballot Format displayed in HTML reflects only the text of the Ballot Proposition and does not reflect how it will appear on the General Election Ballot.
Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced as submitted in the "for" and "against" arguments.

KEN BENNETT
Arizona Secretary of State

© September 2012