Case Title: In Re Harrell

Citation: 331 N.C. 105, 414 S.E.2d 36

Docket Number: 484A91

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 1992-03-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
414 S.E.2d 36 (1992) 331 N.C. 105 In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 147, Allen W. HARRELL, Respondent. No. 484A91. Supreme Court of North Carolina. March 5, 1992. No counsel for the Judicial Standards Com'n. No counsel for respondent. PER CURIAM. The Judicial Standards Commission (Commission) notified Judge Allen W. Harrell on 19 October 1990 that it had ordered a preliminary investigation to determine whether formal proceedings under Commission Rule 7 should be instituted against him. The subject matter of the investigation included allegations that the respondent improperly involved himself in State v. Wadell Williams and State v. Virginia Williams by attempting to dissuade the investigating officer from pursuing the investigation and bringing charges against the defendants and by seeking an opinion from the Attorney General's office concerning an aspect of the case through a letter which implied that the respondent would be the presiding judge and failed to reveal that the respondent was actually involved as a witness for the defense. Special Counsel for the Commission filed a complaint on 18 February 1991. Respondent answered the complaint and prayed that the action be dismissed and that no recommendation of discipline be forwarded to the North Carolina Supreme Court as provided by N.C.G.S. § 7A-377, the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of the Judicial Standards Commission. On 29 July 1991, respondent was served with a Notice of Formal Hearing concerning the charges alleged against him. On 5 September 1991, respondent was accorded a plenary hearing before seven members of the Commission on the charges contained in the complaint. The Commission's evidence was presented by James J. Coman, Senior Deputy Attorney General, and respondent was represented by his counsel, Allen G. Thomas, Don Evans, and Donald L. Smith. After hearing the evidence, the Commission concluded on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that (Emphasis in original.) The findings upon which the Commission based its conclusion are found in paragraph 9 of its Recommendation and are as follows: Based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission recommended that the Supreme Court of North Carolina censure the respondent. On 30 October 1991, pursuant to Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Supreme Court Review of Recommendations of the Judicial Standards Commission, the Clerk of this Court forwarded to the respondent and his counsel a certified true copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations of the Judicial Standards Commission, together with a copy of the Rules Governing Supreme Court Review of Recommendations of the Judicial Standards Commission. Respondent was also advised, as provided in Rule 2(b), that he had ten (10) days from the date shown on the return receipt in which to petition the Supreme Court for a hearing. The return receipt, properly filed with this Court, shows a delivery date of 31 October 1991. No petition having been filed with this Court for a hearing, and no briefs having been filed in this case by any party, an order was entered by this Court on 4 December 1991, that this case be disposed of on the record. In re Bullock, 328 N.C. 712, 717, 403 S.E.2d 264, 266 (1991). We have carefully examined the evidence presented to the Commission. We conclude that the findings of fact made by the Commission in paragraph 9 are supported by clear and convincing evidence. See In re Kivett, 309 N.C. 635, 309 S.E.2d 442 (1983). We also agree with the Commission's conclusions of law. We therefore adopt the Commission's findings, conclusions, and recommendation of censure. Now, therefore, it is ordered by the Supreme Court of North Carolina, in Conference, *39 that the respondent, Judge Allen W. Harrell, be, and he is hereby, censured by this Court for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. MEYER, WEBB and LAKE, JJ., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.