Case Title: STATE ex rel. STATE BD. OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS v. IDLEMAN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 119742

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2022-04-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE ex rel. STATE BD. OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS v. IDLEMAN  STATE ex rel. STATE BD. OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS v. IDLEMAN 2022 OK 33 Case Number: 119742 Decided: 04/12/2022 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS, Complainant, v. KIMBERLY IDLEMAN, CSR License No. 1653, Respondent. APPEAL FROM THE OKLAHOMA STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS ¶0 The State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters (Board) filed a formal complaint and recommendation of discipline against the Respondent, Kimberly Idleman (Idleman), pursuant to 20 O.S.2021 § 1502(A)(4) and the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings of the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters, (the Rules) 20 O.S.2021, ch. 20, app. 2. The formal complaint against Respondent was based on referrals by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ("OCCA") arising out of her work as a certified shorthand reporter, including non-completion of transcripts and significant delays in the completion of transcripts in multiple criminal proceedings in the District Court of Tillman County and the District Court of Jackson County, respectively, as well as allegations that she conducted herself in an unreliable and unprofessional manner. Despite proper service of the formal complaint and notice of the disciplinary hearing before the Board, Respondent did not respond to the formal complaint or appear at the hearing. The Board recommended the revocation of Respondent's license. Upon a de novo review, we hold the failure of this court reporter to complete and to timely and accurately complete transcripts in multiple criminal proceedings, and the resulting ramifications therefrom, warrants license revocation. LICENSE REVOKED. Marie Schuble, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters, Complainant. KANE, V.C.J.: ¶1 The State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters (Board) filed a formal complaint1 and recommendation of discipline against the Respondent, Kimberly Idleman, pursuant to 20 O.S.2021 § 1502(A)(4)2 and the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings of the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters (the Rules), 20 O.S.2021, ch. 20, app. 2.3 The formal complaint against Respondent was based on referrals by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ("OCCA") arising out of her work as a certified shorthand reporter, specifically non-completion of transcripts and significant delays and errors in the completion of transcripts in multiple criminal cases in the District Court of Tillman County and the District Court of Jackson County, respectively, and that Respondent conducted herself in an unreliable and unprofessional manner.4 Despite proper service of the formal complaint and notice of the disciplinary hearing,5 Respondent did not respond to the formal complaint, nor did she appear at the hearing before the Board. On July 8, 2021, the Board held a formal disciplinary hearing, presented evidence, and recommended the revocation of Respondent's license.6 Upon a de novo review, we hold the failure of this court reporter to complete transcripts and to timely and accurately complete transcripts in multiple criminal proceedings, and the resulting ramifications therefrom, warrants license revocation. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Respondent was hired in May 2019 as a court reporter in District 3, which covers Kiowa, Greer, Tillman, Jackson and Harmon counties. Judge Leverett held weekly meetings with Respondent regarding her incomplete and/or missing transcripts, including, but not limited to, the following cases: Perryman v. State, No. F-2020-494, Carruthers v. State, No. F-2020-538, State v. Welker, No. CF-19-46/79, and State v. Lenard, No. CF-19-58. Respondent continually misrepresented the status of the transcripts during her weekly meetings with Judge Leverett. ¶3 In April and May of 2020, transcripts became due to be filed as part of appeal records, but Respondent did not file them. As a result, court clerks filed notices of non-completion with the district courts in the following cases: (1) Scott v. State, No. RE-2020-86;7 (2) Means v. State, No. RE-2020-99;8 and (3) Maldonado v. State, No. RE-2020-139.9 Thereafter, Respondent was terminated by Judge Leverett in May of 2020. ¶4 On July 24, 2020, the OCCA remanded these three matters to the District Court of Tillman County and the District Court of Jackson County for a hearing regarding Respondent's failure prepare the required transcripts. On this same date, Respondent was ordered to advise the OCCA in writing why she had failed to comply with Rule 3.2(C)(2),10 Rules of the Okla. Ct. of Crim. App., 22 O.S.2011, ch. 18, app., which requires the court reporter to submit an affidavit showing why transcripts have not been timely completed and timely filed. Respondent did not submit the required affidavit to the OCCA. ¶5 On July 31, 2020, Respondent appeared at an evidentiary hearing before Judge Leverett. Respondent represented she would deliver the transcripts in Maldonado v. State, No. RE-2020-139, to Tillman County that afternoon. However, Respondent did not deliver the transcripts on that date and the transcripts were, in fact, never completed. Respondent also advised Judge Leverett at the same evidentiary hearing that she would have the transcripts in the Scott v. State, Case No. RE-2020-86 and the Means v. State, No. RE-2020-99, proceedings filed by August 7, 2020. Despite Respondent's promises, none of the transcripts were completed by August 7, 2020.11 ¶6 On August 6, 2020, a motion for order requiring Respondent to file transcripts and to show cause was filed in Jackson County in a fourth case, Staley v. State, No. C-2020-221, alleging Respondent failed to file the designated transcripts. Ultimately, the Staley and Means transcripts were left by Respondent with a safety monitor in the basement of the courthouse; instead of being properly filed with the court clerk's office. ¶7 On August 12, 2020, the OCCA issued an order directing Respondent to appear before it en banc to show cause as to the status of the transcripts in the four above-referenced matters. Respondent failed to appear for the show cause hearing as ordered by the OCCA and did not contact the OCCA to provide any explanation for her failure to appear, as required by Rule 3.2(C)(2), Rules of the Okla. Ct. of Crim. App. ¶8 After Respondent failed to appear before the OCCA at her show cause hearing, the OCCA filed an order on August 20, 2020, remanding all four cases to the district court for an evidentiary hearing for Judge Leverett to determine the status of the appeal records and to advise the OCCA regarding the completion of the appeal records in each case. ¶9 Judge Leverett filed his responses with the OCCA on September 8, 2020. Judge Leverett determined the transcripts in Staley and Means contained scrivener's errors and remanded both cases to the District Court of Jackson County with instructions for the court clerk to correct the errors and to prepare and file a Notice of Filing and to transmit a Notice of Completion in each case. Judge Leverett determined the Scott transcripts were complete and the appeal record was filed with the OCCA. Judge Leverett also determined the Maldonado transcripts were never completed; however, the appeal was dismissed by the OCCA at the defendant's request. ¶10 On October 14, 2020, the OCCA issued an order referring Respondent's non-completion of transcripts to the Board for discipline. The order alleged Respondent's behavior, including her continued failure to ignore directives from the court and her continued habitual neglect of her duties as a certified shorthand reporter, warranted discipline. ¶11 On November 2, 2020, the Board voted to initiate an investigation of Respondent.12 On November 13, 2020, the Board received another referral from the OCCA regarding Respondent because a notice of non-completion of court transcripts had been filed in Perryman v. State, No. CF-2018-175, in the District Court of Jackson County. Respondent did not request an extension or notify the OCCA of the failure as required by Rule 3.2, Rules of the Okla. Court of Crim. App., 22 O.S.2011, ch.18, app.13 ¶12 Respondent was notified of the Board's investigation and complaint, including the orders received from the OCCA, and requested a written response. Respondent responded via letter and acknowledged she was having difficulty in getting the transcripts completed due to "personal factors." ¶13 The Board conducted an investigation and held a formal disciplinary hearing on July 8, 2021, pursuant to 20 O.S. § 1502(A)(4)(d) and Rule 2, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings of the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters, 20 O.S.2021, ch. 20, app. 2. Despite proper service and notice of the hearing, Respondent did not appear at the hearing personally or through counsel.14 ¶14 After the disciplinary hearing, the Board issued its written findings of fact and conclusions of law on July 23, 2021.15 Among these findings, the Board concluded Respondent failed to submit transcripts in the following four criminal proceedings: (1) Carruthers v. State, No. F-2020-538; (2) State v. Lenard, No. CF-19-58; (3) Perryman v. State, No. F-2020-494, and (4) Maldonado v. State, No. RE-2020-139. ¶15 The non-completion of transcripts in the Perryman proceedings resulted in another referral by the OCCA to the Board after Respondent failed to appear at yet another evidentiary hearing before Judge Leverett to show cause as to her failure to complete the transcripts on the dates in question. Ultimately, Judge Leverett was able to re-create a paper trail of what transpired on the dates in question, despite the transcripts never being produced. In the Lenard proceedings, the result of Respondent's failure to produce the transcripts was that the case was remanded to re-conduct the preliminary hearing. It also resulted in the defendant being detained in jail for a longer period of time. ¶16 The Board also concluded Respondent produced transcripts after significant delays and/or with errors in the following cases: State v. Welker, No. CF-19-46 (appeal record filed after eight month delay); Scott v. State, No. RE-2020-86 (appeal record filed after significant delay); Means v. State, No. RE-2020-99 (transcript contained scrivener's errors and was remanded with instructions for court clerk to correct and file Notice of Filing and Notice of Completion); Staley v. State, No. C-2020-221 (transcript contained scrivener's errors and was remanded with instructions for court clerk to correct and file Notice of Filing and Notice of Completion); and State v. Mills, No. CF-2019-76 (appeal record filed after thirteen month delay and with the wrong case number).16 ¶17 The Board concluded Respondent's conduct, her continued misrepresentations to the court, her failure to appear before the OCCA, and her failure to conduct herself in a reliable and professional manner as shown by her continued failure to appear at hearings and/or her tardiness at hearings, and her failure to answer phone calls and/or texts from judges and bailiffs, constituted fraud, gross incompetence, and gross or habitual neglect of duty.17 The case is now before this Court to determine whether the Board's recommendation to revoke this shorthand reporter's license should be accepted or rejected. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶18 We review the Board's recommendation to revoke a court reporter's enrollment as a certified shorthand reporter de novo to determine if the allegations of misconduct were established by clear and convincing evidence. See State ex rel. Bd. of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters v. Clark, 2007 OK 67, ¶ 1, 183 P.3d 164-65; see also State ex rel. Bd. of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters v. Hamm, 2001 OK 8, ¶ 9, 18 P.3d 1077 , 1079 . The Board bears "the burden of persuasion on the material elements of the complaint." Rule 7(b), Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings of the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters, 20 O.S.2021, ch. 20, app. 2. III. DISCUSSION ¶19 The actions of the Board in recommending revocation of Respondent's license "reflects a desire to maintain the highest standards among those in the court reporting profession." Thompson, 2004 OK 94, ¶ 12, 106 P.3d at 594. The record establishes that proper service of the complaint and notice of hearing was accomplished on Respondent via certified mail. The record also establishes Respondent did not formally respond to the complaint or appear personally, or through counsel, before the Board at her scheduled disciplinary hearing despite having the right to do so.18 ¶20 The Board reviewed the facts surrounding the complaint, heard from the witnesses, and reviewed the evidence presented on July 8, 2021.19 The Board then issued its Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation of Discipline as required by Rule 7(d), Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings of the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters, 20 O.S.2021, ch. 20, app. 2. ¶21 On July 23, 2021, the Board filed its recommendation with this Court and recommended Respondent's enrollment as a certified shorthand reporter be revoked due to her "ongoing pattern of unreliable and unprofessional conduct as an official court reporter, her repeated misrepresentations to the court and others, and her habitual delay or failure to produce transcripts in criminal cases, impacting the court, court staff, attorneys, and litigants, constitutes fraud, gross incompetence, and gross or habitual neglect of duty" in accordance with 20 O.S. § 1502(A)(4)20 and Rules 2.2(B)(2),21 2.2(B)(3),22 and 3.2(C)(2)23 of the Okla. Ct. of Crim. App. ¶22 "We are not bound by the Board's findings, recommendations and conclusions." Clark, 2007 OK 67, ¶ 11, 193 P.3d at 167. Thus, the question before us is whether this shorthand reporter's license should be revoked because her failure to complete transcripts in multiple criminal proceedings, her failure to timely and accurately complete transcripts in multiple criminal proceedings, along with her unreliable and unprofessional conduct, represents gross incompetence and neglect of duty warranting revocation. ¶23 In State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters v. Thompson, 2004 OK 94, 106 P.3d 589 , and State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters v. Clark, 2007 OK 67, 193 P.3d 164, we revoked the shorthand reporter's license for actions similar to those presented here. In Clark, we revoked the shorthand reporter's license for failure to complete a single transcript in a criminal proceeding because it represented gross incompetence and neglect of duty, which had ramifications on the defense. See Clark, 2007 OK 67, ¶¶ 9, 11, 183 P.3d at 167. In Thompson, we revoked the shorthand reporter's license for incomplete and inaccurate transcripts in a criminal case that could not be repaired. See Thompson, 2004 OK 94, ¶ 2, 106 P.3d at 591. Similar actions are present in this case, but on a much more frequent basis. While the court reporter in Clark and Thompson failed to complete a single transcript in a criminal proceeding, the uncontested evidence in this case supports Respondent failed to complete four transcripts in four different criminal proceedings and that Respondent failed to timely and accurately complete five transcripts in an additional five criminal proceedings. Such actions constitute fraud, gross incompetence, or gross or habitual neglect of duty requiring revocation pursuant to 20 O.S. § 1502(A)(4). ¶24 The ramifications of Respondent's proceedings might not appear to be as serious as the vacation of a sentence of death in a jury trial due to omitted portions of a transcript, like the case in Thompson, but the record before us today does support multiple and continuous cases of gross incompetence and/or gross or habitual neglect of duty by Respondent. Like the trial court did in Thompson,24 Judge Leverett attempted to re-recreate or reconstruct the record in Perryman after Respondent failed to produce the transcripts.25 In the Maldonado case, the appeal was dismissed by the OCCA at defendant's request - a fortuitous result considering the serious consequences that could have resulted from Respondent's inactions.26 ¶25 Additional ramifications of Respondent's conduct are displayed in the Lenard case, where the case had to be remanded and the preliminary hearing had to be re-conducted due to Respondent's failure to submit the transcripts.27 Respondent's conduct in that proceeding also had ramifications on the defense which resulted in the defendant being detained in jail for a longer period of time. This is unacceptable. ¶26 Respondent did not respond to the Complaint, nor did she appear at the hearing before the Board. The record is clear Respondent was given ample time to turn in missing transcripts and/or to make corrections in the necessary transcripts. Despite this opportunity, Respondent did not take advantage of Judge Leverett's advice or time, despite his generosity. Respondent's conduct has caused unnecessary delays to the court, additional costs and time to the parties and attorneys involved, harm to the defendants, and to her profession, in general. ¶27 Upon our independent review, we determine the appropriate discipline is that imposed in Clark and Thompson, supra, and we revoke Respondent's court reporter's license. Our decision is supported by the clear and convincing evidence. IV. CONCLUSION ¶28 We adopt the findings and conclusions of the Board in this matter. Upon a de novo review, we hold the failure of Respondent to complete and to timely and accurately complete transcripts in multiple criminal proceedings, and the resulting ramifications therefrom, warrants license revocation. LICENSE REVOKED. CONCUR: Kane, V.C.J., Kauger, Winchester, Edmondson, Combs, Gurich, Rowe and Kuehn, JJ. RECUSED: Darby, C.J. FOOT