Opinion ID: 852383
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Charges relating to conduct of Judge Hawkins after Buntin's PCR petition was granted.

Text: The Commission alleged the following counts of misconduct relating to the delay in the Buntin case after the order granting post-conviction relief was issued:  Count IX: Judge Hawkins did not ensure on March 8, 2007, that the Buntin PCR Order was processed immediately and the parties were notified of the court's Order, violating Canons 1, 2A, and 3B(9), and committing conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.  Count X: Judge Hawkins did not ensure that a hearing on the issue of Buntin's release or continued incarceration was immediately scheduled after March 8, 2007, violating Canons 1, 2A, and 3B(9), and committing conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. After the Buntin PCR Order was finally issued 22 months after the hearing, neither Judge Hawkins nor Commissioner Broyles supervised the processing of the order, nor did they verify with Court 5 staff or the deputy clerk assigned to Court 5 that the order had been processed promptly and entered on the CCS. The Buntin PCR Order was not entered onto the CCS until March 27, 2007a delay of nearly three weeks, creating confusion about when the State's time for appeal would expire. Further, after the issuance of the Buntin PCR Order, neither Judge Hawkins nor Commissioner Broyles complied with the requirement of Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1, Section 6, that a court, after granting post-conviction relief, enter any supplementary orders as to arraignment, retrial, custody, bail, discharge, correction of sentence, or other matters that may be necessary and proper. No hearing was set until after Buntin's family made inquires to the court. Judge Hawkins' delay in setting a hearing further prolonged Buntin's custody in the Department of Correction. The Masters found that the Commission proved the charges in Counts IX and X by clear and convincing evidence. The Court agrees and concludes that Judge Hawkins' conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, and 3B(9) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.