DOCSLIB.ORG

Before the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Arizona in the Matter of Members of the State Bar of Arizona, An

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Before the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Arizona in the Matter of Members of the State Bar of Arizona, An BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA IN THE MATTER OF MEMBERS PDJ-2011-9002 OF THE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA, ANDREW P. THOMAS, BAR NO. 014069, LISA M. AUBUCHON, BAR NO. 013141, and OPINION AND ORDER IMPOSING RACHEL R. ALEXANDER, BAR NO. SANCTIONS 020092 Respondents. [Nos. 09-2293, 09-2294, 09-2296, 10-0423, 10-0663, 10-0664] This case was heard as a result of a Complaint in attorney discipline being filed against Andrew P. Thomas, Lisa M. Aubuchon and Rachael R. Alexander. Formal hearings were held before the Hearing Panel over 26 days commencing September 12, 2011 and concluding November 2, 2011. As a result of the findings entered by the Honorable John S. Leonardo in State of Arizona vs. Wilcox, CR-2010-005423-001/OC-2010-005423-001, the Executive Director of the State Bar requested the appointment of independent counsel to investigate allegations of misconduct against then Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas. Pursuant to Article VI of the Arizona Constitution and by Administrative Order No. 2010-41 entered on March 23, 2010, Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch of the Arizona Supreme Court appointed the Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation under the direction of Regulation Counsel, John Gleason, as Independent Bar Counsel. Mr. Gleason and other attorneys within that office designated by him were invested with “all the power and authority granted to Bar Counsel pursuant to rules, orders, or decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court.” Mr. Gleason was charged to investigate and, as he determined appropriate, prosecute allegations of ethical 1 misconduct against then Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas or lawyers in his employ arising from multiple events occurring during his tenure as County Attorney. On March 8, 2010, by Administrative order 2010-33, Charles E. Jones, former Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court (now retired), was appointed to serve as the Probable Cause Panelist to review any allegations arising from that investigation. As required by the Supreme Court Rules, Probable Cause Panelist Jones reviewed in its entirety Independent Bar Counsel’s “Report of Investigation and Request for Authority to File Formal Complaint.” On December 6, 2010, an independent finding of probable cause was entered by that Probable Cause Panelist. On February 3, 2011, Independent Bar Counsel filed a thirty three (33) claim complaint against Andrew Thomas, Lisa Aubuchon and Rachael Alexander regarding events occurring during his term as County Attorney. Mr. Thomas faced thirty (30) charges; Ms. Aubuchon faced twenty–eight (28) charges and Ms. Alexander seven (7) charges. The alleged violations included, but were not limited to, Conflict of Interest and Prosecutorial Misconduct. The parties stipulated on September 6, 2011 to multiple facts that are adopted by the Hearing Panel. Each of the Respondents is subject to the jurisdiction of the Arizona Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 31 of the Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court. Andrew P. Thomas was admitted to the Bar of the State of Arizona on October 26, 1991. His Bar Number is 014069. Lisa M. Aubuchon was admitted to the Bar of the State of Arizona on October 27, 1990. Her Bar Number is 13141. Rachel R. Alexander admitted to the Bar of the State of Arizona on May 19, 2000. Her Bar Number is 20092. 2 Mr. Thomas was elected Maricopa County Attorney in 2004. He was reelected in 2008. He resigned from that office effective April 6, 2010. Ms. Aubuchon worked at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office from 1996 through 2010. Ms. Alexander worked at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office from 2005 through 2010. Pursuant to Rule 52 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, a three person Hearing Panel was appointed by the Disciplinary Clerk. The Hearing Panel was comprised of a volunteer public member, the Rev. Dr. John C. N. Hall, a volunteer attorney member, Mark S. Sifferman and by virtue of his position, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, William J. O’Neil. Independent Bar Counsel appeared in person and presented evidence and argument in support of its position. Respondents each appeared in person or through counsel. Each Respondent through counsel presented evidence and argument in support of his or her respective individual positions. Closing arguments were permitted to be submitted in writing. The Hearing Panel heard and considered the extensive record and after receiving the closing arguments took the matter under advisement. INTRODUCTION In Arizona, “[t]he professional conduct of members shall be governed by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association” as amended by the Supreme Court of Arizona “and adopted as the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct.” R. Sup. Ct. Ariz. 42. Every member of the Arizona Bar Association is subject to these rules regardless of how lofty or low a position they hold. The duties and obligations of members shall be: (a) Those prescribed by the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct adopted as rule 42 of these rules. 3 (b) To support the constitution and the laws of the United States and of this state. (c) To maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers. (d) To counsel or maintain no other action, proceeding or defense than those which appear to him legal and just, excepting the defense of a person charged with a public offense. (e) To employ for the purpose of maintaining causes confided to him such means only as are consistent with truth, and never seek to mislead the judges by any artifice or false statement of fact or law. (f) To maintain inviolate the confidences and preserve the secrets of a client. (g) To avoid engaging in unprofessional conduct and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or a witness unless required by the justice of the cause with which the member is charged. (h) Not to encourage either the commencement or continuation of an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of passion or interest, and never to reject for any consideration personal to himself the cause of the defenseless or oppressed. R. Sup. Ct. Ariz. 41. TABLE OF CONTENTS This Decision addresses the Claims in the order they occur in the Complaint. For this reason, the narrative is not always in perfect chronological order. PREFACE PAGE 5 PROLOGUE PAGE 23 THE UTILIZATION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL PAGE 30 THE DISPUTES WITH SUPERVISORS OVER COUNSEL PAGE 32 CLAIMS ONE THROUGH THREE PAGE 38 THE INVESTIGATION OF SUPERVISOR STAPLEY PAGE 47 THE PROSECUTION OF SUPERVISOR STAPLEY PAGE 60 CLAIMS FOUR THROUGH ELEVEN PAGE 64 4 THE COURT TOWER INVESTIGATION PAGE 93 CLAIMS TWELVE THROUGH FOURTEEN PAGE 100 THE RICO CASE PAGE 106 CLAIMS FIFTEEN THROUGH TWENTY PAGE 121 THE SECOND PROSECUTION OF DON STAPLEY (STAPLEY II) AND THE PROSECUTION OF MARY ROSE WILCOX PAGE 129 CLAIMS TWENTY-ONE THROUGH TWENTY-THREE PAGE 132 CLAIMS REGARDING JUDGE GARY DONAHOE PAGE 138 CLAIMS TWENTY-FOUR TO THIRTY PAGE 174 CLAIMS INVOLVING THE FINAL GRAND JURY PAGE 218 CLAIMS THIRTY-ONE TO THIRTY TWO PAGE 218 CLAIM THIRTY-THREE FAILURE TO COOPERATE PAGE 222 SANCTIONS PAGE 224 CONCLUSION PAGE 228 CONCURRING OPINION PAGE 233 PREFACE The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice. A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult. A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies. Proverbs 12:15–17. Like darkened clouds on the horizon, there were, in retrospect, certain events that gave fair warning to the then–impending storm this Complaint addresses. They are described in detail in this report. Always at the center is Mr. Thomas. 5 Several prior landmarks provide background and context to this man’s story: earning a law degree from a prestigious school, joining a prominent law firm, moving into the heights of the governmental corridors of power, suddenly falling from such lofty position, safely landing with a political appointment, resigning to run for state office and a far more personal fall in losing, being hired by a multi- term county attorney but tasked to do menial entry level work, observing Lisa Aubuchon during a new employee training, running for office and winning, hiring Rachael Alexander in his first year in office and perhaps committing to do whatever he determined was necessary to remain there. Attorney discipline is an inherently personal subject. The Supreme Court of Arizona has declared it sui generis, or unique to itself. It is not based on criminal or civil law but rather administrative rules. Each Respondent has been judged independently of one another. The category of individuals who act unethically is not the exclusive province of any single political party, nor is intelligence or its absence a predictor of unethical action. Such untoward conduct is not limited by race, nationality or creed. Until one decides that virtue matters—until it becomes a personal mission—no training will produce the commitment needed to pursue or maintain integrity. While in a discipline case conduct is measured against rules and standards, it is more than those regulations. Ignoring for the Moment the Charges Re: Supervisors Stapley and Wilcox In these prefatory comments we choose to set aside for later discussion the charges regarding Supervisor Stapley and Supervisor Wilcox. By our ruling we dismiss the charges related to allegations that either Mr. Stapley or Ms. Wilcox was represented individually by any Respondent. They were not. We explain our other rulings in detail regarding those two individuals. Our general comments regarding 6 ethics and discipline certainly apply to all. However, in these initial comments we choose to focus on the prosecutorial misconduct related to the charges involving multiple other individuals impacted by the actions of Respondents.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WEST VIRGINIA HOUSE of DELEGATES, Petitioner, V
    No. 18-____ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— WEST VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES, Petitioner, v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ex rel. MARGARET L. WORKMAN, MITCH CARMICHAEL, President of the West Virginia Senate; DONNA J. BOLEY, President Pro Tempore of the West Virginia Senate; RYAN FERNS, Majority Leader of the West Virginia Senate; LEE CASSIS, Clerk of the West Virginia Senate; and the WEST VIRGINIA SENATE, Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia ———— PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— MARK A. CARTER Counsel of Record DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 707 Virginia Street, East Chase Tower, Suite 1300 Charleston, WV 25301 (304) 357-0900 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner January 8, 2019 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia’s decision in this case violates the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution. 2. Whether the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia properly denied the Motion to Intervene of the Petitioner, the West Virginia House of Delegates. (i) ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT Respondents are Margaret L. Workman; Mitch Carmichael, President of the West Virginia Senate; Donna J. Boley, President Pro Tempore of the West Virginia Senate; Ryan Ferns, Majority Leader of the West Virginia Senate; Lee Cassis, Clerk of the West Virginia Senate; and the West Virginia Senate. Petitioner is the West Virginia House of Delegates as an indispensable and materially affected party who was wrongfully denied intervenor status.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinal County Superior Court Building
    f • F I LED NOV 2 5 1997 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA In The Matter Of: ) ) A NEW JURY HANDBOOK ) Administrative Order FOR THE SUPERIOR ) No. 97- 64 COURT IN PINAL COUNTY ) ) --------------------------------) Pursuant to Rule 18.6(a), Rules of Criminal Procedure, Alma J. Haught, Clerk of the Superior Court in Pinal County, requests the Court's approval of a new jury handbook. The Court, having reviewed a draft of the handbook, finds that it is sufficient in form and content to fully and properly advise jurors of their conduct and duties, and the operations of the judicial system in which they will be serving. Now, therefore, pursuant to Article VI, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution, IT IS ORDERED that the handbook is approved for immediate use by the Superior Court in Pinal County in the form submitted hereto as Attachment A. DATED this 25th day of November ,1997. THOMAS A. ZLA~ Chief Justice COpy ,4TTACHMENT A .f lJ I( \' i 1;\ N I,.I()OK PINAL ('OllNT" COlll{TS STAT II: OF AIUZONA Illi,- I, '''Hlh'''''' h:" I" \'11 :ll'llnl\' cI It, Ih,' '-I'p"'IIII' t ollfl III Ih.' ',1;1'1' ul ;\liltilla 1"" '>lI:!!I' ,,, "H' 1(110,,1 ( I illlillal l'rlltT,lul'/ Hllh lit I,'al. JURY HANDBOOK Prepared by: Alma Jennlnp Hauabt Oerk of tbe Superior Court 1997 Edition INDEX General Information 6S Absence from Employment 6S Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Period of Service 6S Justice of the Peace Judges and Precincts 4 Work Verification 66 Superior Court Judges and Divisions 6 Parking 66 Clerk of the Superior Court! Attire 66 Jury Commissioner 18 Vacation/Change of Address 66 Welcome 21 Payment 67 Introduction 23 Badges 67 Guarantees of the Right to Trial by Jury 25 Jury Trial Scheduling 67 Arizona's Judicial System 27 Smoking Policy 67 Supreme Court 28 Telephones 68 Court of Appeals 29 Security 68 Superior Court 30 Pinal County Complex Diagram 69 Justice of the Peace Courts 32 Judicial Building (Courthouse) Diagram 70 Municipal Courts 34 Important Telephone Numbers 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Azturbocourt User Manual
    AZTurboCourt User Manual Arizona Supreme Court - Court Services Division Version 3.9 Updated using gamma version 10.9.3 August 2013 1 | P a g e Statewide User Manual - Version 3.9 © 2015 Arizona Supreme Court -All Rights Reserved 2 | P a g e Statewide User Manual - Version 3.9 © 2015 Arizona Supreme Court -All Rights Reserved Contents Section One: AZTurboCourt Registration 5 AZTurboCourt Home Page 7 Registering: 7 Adding a user account 9 Editing Organization Information 10 Inactivating a user account 10 Section Two: User Menu 11 Start a new filing 11 Messages 11 Recent e-filing 12 My Forms 13 My Profile 15 My Payments/Financial 16 Section Three: E-filing in Maricopa County Superior Court 17 Maricopa County Superior Court Main Document Types 22 Subsequent Document Title List 23 Section Four: Court of Appeals Division One or the Arizona Supreme Court 25 Things to know before you start e-filing 25 Start a new case: Court of Appeals Div. One and or/ the Arizona Supreme Court 26 Subsequent filings: Court of Appeals Div One and/or the Arizona Supreme Court 31 Access conformed court copy 35 Document Title List 37 Initiating Document Title List-Arizona Supreme Court 37 Subsequent Document Title List- Arizona Supreme Court 38 Initiating Document Title List-Court of Appeals Division One 40 Subsequent Document Title List- Court of Appeals Division One 41 Section Five: Payment Options 43 Section Six: Supplemental Information 51 Attach supporting documents in Maricopa County Superior Court 51 Attach supporting documents in Court of Appeals Division One or the Arizona Supreme Court 51 Courtesy Notifications 52 Filing Details and Status Messages: 52 Trouble Shooting Error Messages 53 Header Detail on Attachment Page 55 Keyword Matter # 55 Request my forms 55 Copy for new form set 56 Delete Filing 57 List my forms 57 Start new filing 58 Summary Sheet 59 3 | P a g e Statewide User Manual - Version 3.9 © 2015 Arizona Supreme Court -All Rights Reserved Viewing Court Case Documents 59 Common Terms 61 Administrative Order No.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Judicial Branch Information Technology Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 2011-2013
    Arizona Judicial Branch Information Technology Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 2011-2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................. 1 I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................ 9 II. PLANNING METHOD AND PARTICIPANTS ................................... 18 III. JUDICIAL BRANCH VISION ......................................................... 21 IV. JUDICIAL BRANCH STRATEGIC INITIATIVES .............................. 24 V. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC INITIATIVES .............. 34 VI. FISCAL YEAR 2010 ACCOMPLISHMENTS .................................... 41 VII. CURRENT ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS ......................................... 57 VIII. STRATEGIC INITIATIVES ............................................................ 59 IX. STRATEGIC PROJECTS .............................................................. 97 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: HARDWARE ENVIRONMENT DETAIL .......................................... 211 APPENDIX B: SOFTWARE ENVIRONMENT DETAIL .......................................... 213 APPENDIX C: TABLE OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS………………….220 APPENDIX D: COUNTY COURT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PLANS ............................................................................................ 228 ARIZONA JUDICIAL BRANCH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PLAN: 2011 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Arizona Judicial Branch is using technology to reach its goals of connecting with and protecting the community. Having built the basic
    [Show full text]
  • Short Summary and Expedited The
    SHORT, SUMMARY & EXPEDITED THE EVOLUTION OF CIVIL JURY TRIALS SHORT, SUMMARY & EXPEDITED THE EVOLUTION OF CIVIL JURY TRIALS PROJECT DIRECTOR PAULA L. HANNAFORD-AGOR PROJECT STAFF NICOLE L. WATERS AMY M. MCDOWELL SUSAN L. KEILITZ CYNTHIA G. LEE SHANNON BAPTISTE Acknowledgments In compiling these case studies, we are indebted to the judges, attorneys, and court staff who gave so generously of their time and expertise: ARIZONA NEW YORK Hon. Norman Davis Hon. Douglas McKeon Hon. Hugh Hegyi Hon. Barry Salman Hon. Joseph Gama Hon. Lucindo Suarez Marcus Reinkensmeyer Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Phil Knox Jack Lehnert Peter Kiefer Frank Vozza, Esq. Emelda Dailey Annmarie Webster, Esq. Andrew Turk, Esq. Michelle Kolodny, Esq. Dorothy Paine, Esq. CALIFORNIA OREGON Hon. Mary Thornton House Hon. Paul De Muniz Hon. Curtis Karnow Hon. Adrienne Nelson Hon. Michael P. Linfield Hon. Henry Kantor Patrick O’Donnell Hon. Janice Wilson Dan Pone Hon. Marilynn Litzenberger Anne Ronan Hon. Judith Matarrazo Dag MacLeod Douglas P. Oh-Keith, Esq. Kristin Greenaway Walter H. Sweek, Esq. Gregory C. Drapac Elijah B. Van Camp, Esq. Gloria Gomez Jason Kafoury, Esq. Dawn Marie Favata, Esq. Erik Van Hagen, Esq. Michael Geibelson, Esq. Emery Wang, Esq. Mike Maguire, Esq. Dean Heiling, Esq. Jon P. Strouss, III, Esq. Tyler Staggs, Esq. Eric V. Traut, Esq. Randall Wolfe, Esq. Larry Shuckman, Esq. We are also indebted to Peter Kyle and Rachel Ganong for background research and to Shannon Baptiste for SOUTH CAROLINA administrative support. Hon. Jean Hoefer Toal Hon. Daniel Pieper This project was supported by Grant No. 2009-D1-BX-K038 Hon. Kristi Harrington awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Consultant Report, Anchorage Felony Delay
    IMPROVING CRIMINAL CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT IN THE ALASKA SUPERIOR COURT IN ANCHORAGE Final Technical Assistance Report March 2009 David C. Steelman, Esq. Principal Court Management Consultant Daniel J. Hall, Vice President Court Consulting Services 707 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2900 Denver, CO 80202-3429 (303) 293-3063 © 2009 National Center for State Courts This document was prepared under a 2008 agreement between the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and the Office of the Administrative Director of the Alaska Court System (Alaska Court System), for the provision of technical assistance to the Alaska Superior Court in Anchorage, Alaska (the Superior Court). The points of view and opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of either the Alaska Court System or the Superior Court. NCSC grants the Alaska Court System and the Superior Court a royalty-free, non-exclusive license to produce, reproduce, publish, distribute or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, all or any part of this report for any governmental or public purpose. Online legal research provided by LexisNexis. ii IMPROVING CRIMINAL CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT IN THE ALASKA SUPERIOR COURT IN ANCHORAGE Table of Contents Page Overview .........................................................................................................................................v Part One. The “Phoenix Group” at the NCSC Workshop on Reducing Delay in Metropolitan Courts ................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Court-Connected Arbitration in the Superior Courts of Arizona
    A Study of Court-Connected Arbitration in the Superior Courts of Arizona Submitted to The Supreme Court of Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts By Roselle L. Wissler & Bob Dauber Lodestar Dispute Resolution Program Arizona State University College of Law July 13, 2005 A Study of Court-Connected Arbitration in the Superior Courts of Arizona Executive Summary I. Introduction: Arizona’s Court-Connected Arbitration System Arizona has had mandatory, non-binding arbitration as a component of its civil court system for over three decades. The purpose of this alternative dispute resolution process is to provide for the efficient and inexpensive handling of small claims. By reducing the number of cases pending before judges, court-connected arbitration also is intended to expedite the disposition of civil cases that remain in the traditional litigation process. In early 2004, the Supreme Court of Arizona’s Administrative Office of the Courts commissioned a study to examine the current arbitration system to determine its efficiency and effectiveness as an alternative dispute resolution tool, as well as to ascertain user satisfaction with the process and its outcomes. This study accessed various sources of information to answer the following questions: 1. How do the different courts in Arizona administer their arbitration programs? 2. How are the arbitration programs performing? 3. How is court-connected arbitration viewed by lawyers? 4. What is the experience with court-connected arbitration in other states? The structure of court-connected arbitration in Arizona, and the different ways it is administered throughout the state, is addressed in Section II of this Report. Section III examines the performance of arbitration programs through an analysis of civil case data.
    [Show full text]
  • Phoenix Municipal Court Juror Reference Manual
    Phoenix Municipal Court Juror Reference Manual Message from the Chief Presiding Judge Welcome Juror, You have been summoned for jury service. Your participation as a juror is just as important as the judge's and the attorneys' in the courtroom. Your role as a juror is to get a full understanding of the facts of a criminal case, to evaluate the evidence, and to make an impartial and fair decision. The outcome of a trial by jury relies on you. Therefore, we ask you to discharge your duty with care, honesty, and good conscience. We hope your jury service will be a rewarding, interesting, and positive experience. Our court system strives for fairness to everyone who comes before it, and the core of this fairness is Trial by Jury. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson listed the fact that the citizens of the Colonies had been deprived of the benefits of Trial by Jury as one of the injuries perpetrated by the King of Great Britain. As citizens of this Country, if we are accused of certain criminal acts, we have the right to a Trial by Jury. By the same token, we have the responsibility to act when called upon to serve as a juror. Like the privilege of voting, jury duty is one significant way we can participate in the democratic process. The people of the United States of America rely upon jurors for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As a juror, you will play an important role in the American system of justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioner, V
    No. 19-____ In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF ARIZONA, Petitioner, v. HECTOR SEBASTION NUNEZ-DIAZ, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Arizona Supreme Court PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI MARK BRNOVICH ORAMEL H. (O.H.) SKINNER Attorney General Solicitor General DREW C. ENSIGN Deputy Solicitor General JOSEPH A. KANEFIELD Counsel of Record Chief Deputy and ANTHONY R. NAPOLITANO Chief of Staff ROBERT J. MAKAR Assistant Attorneys General BRUNN W. ROYSDEN III OFFICE OF THE ARIZONA Division Chief ATTORNEY GENERAL 2005 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 542-5025 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner i QUESTION PRESENTED In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) and Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017), this Court held that lawful permanent residents that received deficient advice regarding immigration-law consequences of a plea can assert claims under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Although this Court has not yet addressed how these precedents apply to unlawfully present aliens, the lower courts are deeply divided as to how they do. Respondent, an unauthorized alien, asserted a Padilla/Lee claim. It is undisputed that he had no substantive right to remain in the United States, and was thus subject to deportation at any time. Respondent also submitted no evidence whatsoever that he had a viable defense either against the criminal charges or deportation if he were acquitted. The Arizona Supreme Court nevertheless extended Padilla and Lee to unauthorized aliens and held that Respondent had established prejudice under Strickland.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation of the Electronic Court Record in the Juvenile Court in Maricopa County
    CLIMATE CHANGE: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ELECTRONIC COURT RECORD IN THE JUVENILE COURT IN MARICOPA COUNTY Institute for Court Management ICM Fellows Program 2013-2014 Court Project Phase May 2014 Debora Wells-Guevara Juvenile Services Administrator Maricopa County Clerk of the Court Phoenix, Arizona Acknowledgments I thank Michael Jeanes, Clerk of the Superior Court, Maricopa County and Chief Deputy, Chris Kelly, for their leadership, commitment to professional development and encouragement. Both are role models for leading and managing change and visionaries for the Clerk’s Office and the Superior Court. I am grateful to them for allowing me the opportunity to take on the challenge of completing the Fellows Program. I thank my colleagues in the Clerk’s Office, Mark Jensen, EDM Manager and Dorothy King, Business Analyst. Mark was generous of his time and extraordinarily patient talking through many questions and Dorothy has been an extraordinary resource for all things in Juvenile Court operations. I thank the staff at the National Center for State Courts, and in particular, Daniel Straub, my project advisor, who provided insight and guidance. Also, Amy McDowell and Joan Cochet, who were of great help to me. I acknowledge my classmates for their support during all phases of the program, especially Johnny Tse, who was helpful with Microsoft Word and Excel. And my colleague, Stacey Brady, who kindly read through my document. Finally, to my husband and children, you encouraged, assisted and supported me. You are the best! “Nothing is accomplished unless you first try.” - Anonymous iii iv Table of Contents Acknowledgments ............................................................................................... iii Table of Contents .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Arizona Courts Summary Report
    THE ARIZONA COURTS SUMMARY REPORT •• History, Structure and Operation State Capitol Phoenix, Arizona J Ji - PUBLISHED ON BEHALF OF THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT JAMES DUKE CAMERON, Chief Justice FRED C. STRUCKMEYER, JR., Vice Chief Justice JACK D. H. HAYS, Associate Justice WILLIAM A. HOLOHAN, Associate Justice FRANK X. GORDON, JR., Associate Justice ... BY ·-.,, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS NOEL K. DESSAINT Administrative Director of the Courts 'i."H r, '~ i~ · :,!'; r:·· '. ~;~:./'" DECEMBER, 1977 \ " Arizon:a, S1Treme Cant±. Adro',nis±rnrtive Ditec±o sc_\,&'. HY1 ~~ THE ARIZONA COURTS SUMMARY REPORT ~,,,,,,._,, -- ... , E .,,.,,.... ,:~~~ \;n ('0 ''•• ~,q, i,, ~111\ I*,--- . ~r·,:,,-,, * 'I I I \ ~,..,,,.,~ IIW,l/1'1)/'rl,'1: ~,~ l ,, 7?. ~I •• ,,~b • \.'VI ,,~, OF t,.9- / 1'.\.''''"''~ History, Structure and Operation ARIZONA DEPT. OF LIBRARY ARCHIVES & PWBLIC RECORDS SEP 1 6 1999 State Capitol Phoenix, Arizona This publication was partially supported by Grant Number 76-149-0 II E-C(a) awarded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice. ~ IS O()tUMIHH 1$ l" HI ,ROl't:ATY I• 01 T .. [ MUMBlfl 66368·~- DEPARlMENT o, LIBRARYANDA8.CHJVES JAN ., 1978 - AA l ~ONA - ,.,c1,vo 1 Justices of the Supreme Court of Arizona. Seated: Fred C. Struckmeyer, Jr. , Vice Chief Justice; James Duke Cameron, Chief Justice; Jack D. H. Hays, Justice. Standing: William A. Holohan, Justice; Frank X. Gordon,.Jr., Justice. /\ I 0 "'4.-r__J \ , cl -' ' , (I~: C ·;,-1?,., I r TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT . 1 INTRODUCTIONS ..... .. .. .. .. .... .. .... .. ... .. .. 2 THE CONSTITUTION . ..... .. .... ..... .... ..... .. 3 1910 . ....... .. ....... ... .. ........ ..... .. 3 MODERN COURTS AMENDMENT-1960 .... ......... 4 MERIT SELECTION-1974 .
    [Show full text]
  • MEETING NOTICE and AGENDA Commission on Statewide Rules Of
    Supreme Court of Nevada ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS ROBIN SWEET JOHN MCCORMICK Director and Assistant Court Administrator State Court Administrator Judicial Programs and Services RICHARD A. STEFANI Deputy Director Information Technology MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA Commission on Statewide Rules of Criminal Procedure Videoconference Date and Time of Meeting: March 21, 2019 at Noon Place of Meeting: Carson City Las Vegas Washoe Supreme Court Nevada Supreme Court Building Second Judicial District Court Library Room 107 Conference Room A/B Room 220B 201 S. Carson Street 408 E. Clark Avenue 75 Court Street Carson City, Nevada Las Vegas, NV Reno, NV Teleconference Access: Dial-In # 1-408-740-7256 Meeting ID 1110011234 All participants attending via teleconference should mute their lines when not speaking; it is highly recommended that teleconference attendees use a landline and handset in order to reduce background noise. AGENDA I. Call to Order A. Call of Roll and Determination of a Quorum B. Opening Remarks II. Public Comment III. Review and Approval of the February 25, 2019 Meeting Summary* (Tab 1) IV. Work Group Updates A. Jury Instructions Work Group (Tab 2) B. Life/Death Pretrial Practice Work Group i. Settlement Conferences – Research/Follow-Ups (Tab 3) V. Proposed Statewide Rules: Discussion A. Draft Rules Discussion (Tab 4) i. Boyd Law School White Paper (Tab 5) ii. Local Rules of Practice Supreme Court Building 201 South Carson Street, Suite 250 Carson City, Nevada 89701 (775) 684-1700 · Fax (775) 684-1723 Supreme Court Building 408 East Clark Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 1 Second Judicial District Eighth Judicial District B.
    [Show full text]