Opinion ID: 852383
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Commission's charges against Judge Hawkins and Commissioner Broyles.

Text: Based on the above-recited facts, the Commission alleged both the Judge and the Commissioner violated the following provisions of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct [9] and Admission and Discipline Rules:  Canon 1: A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards in order to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary.  Canon 2A: A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.  Canon 3B(2): A judge shall be faithful to the law....  Canon 3B(9): A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly, and efficiently.  Admission and Discipline Rule 25(III)(A)(6): Any judicial officer may be disciplined for ... conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice ... The Commission also alleged Judge Hawkins violated the following additional Canons of Judicial Conduct:  Canon 3C(3): A judge with supervisory authority for the judicial performance of other judges shall take reasonable measures to assure the prompt disposition of matters before them and the proper performance of their other judicial responsibilities.  Canon 3C(2): A judge shall require staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge.... Our review of the facts of this matter demonstrates that Commissioner Broyles was primarily responsible for the inexcusable delay in the Buntin case and the other PCR cases discussed above. The resulting harm to Buntin was continued incarceration while awaiting a ruling granting his petition for post-conviction relief, which ultimately resulted in his release. Canon 3B(9) requires judges to dispose of all matters promptly and efficiently. It is essential for all judicial officers to have in place procedures to ensure not only that the judge makes a timely decision, but also that the order is correctly and promptly processed by the personnel responsible for the task. Lack of such procedures in Court 5 allowed the order Commissioner Broyles signed in the Buntin case in May 2006 to go unprocessed until the Commission initiated an investigation ten months later, allowed the Buntin file to disappear during this ten-month period, allowed Buntin's letters to Court 5 to go unheeded, and allowed the Buntin PCR Order issued on March 8, 2007, to go unprocessed for nearly three weeks. In addition to Buntin's letters, there were of other contacts with Court 5 that should have prompted a rulingnumerous telephone calls from Buntin's family, at least two emails from Rader, and several inquiries from Rader's paralegal. Commissioner Broyles and Judge Hawkins both asserted that they would have welcomed some prompting to make a ruling. The statement by Judge Hawkins that no such inquiries were made, when in fact many were indeed made, clearly demonstrates Court 5 lacked a system that ensured that either the Commissioner or the Judge was advised of inquiries about overdue rulings. Moreover, the inquiries Commissioner Broyles actually received went unheeded. Further, as noted above, Commissioner Broyles routinely entered final orders in PCR cases, rather than reporting her findings to Judge Hawkins for entry of the final order, in violation of Indiana Code sections 33-33-49-16(e), 33-23-5-8(2) and 33-23-5-9(a). Commissioner Broyles gave the impression that entering the orders without the judge's approval was nothing more than a technicality. Commissioner Broyles was widely respected by the criminal defense bar for her competence in PCR issues and was known as a commissioner who would give a defendant a fair hearing. Prior to her service as a commissioner for Judge Hawkins, she worked for over six years as commissioner for another judge of the Marion Superior Court. Notwithstanding her commendable service, however, Commissioner Broyles admits, and we agree, that she violated Canons 1, 2A, 3B(2), and 3B(9) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and that she committed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Pursuant to her agreement with the Commission, which we approved on October 10, 2008, she has been permanently banned from serving in any judicial capacity of any kind, including service as a judge pro tempore. The Commission alleged eleven counts of judicial misconduct against Judge Hawkins. These fall into three categories: (1) conduct before the Commission's inquiry into the alleged delay in the Buntin ruling; (2) conduct during the Commission's investigation; and (3) delay in the Buntin case after the order granting his PCR petition was issued.