In re Hawkins

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court addressed judicial disciplinary charges against Marion Superior Court Judge Grant W. Hawkins and Commissioner Nancy Broyles arising from delays in ruling on prisoners' post-conviction relief petitions and related investigative conduct. The Court concluded that Hawkins committed multiple violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; Broyles had separately agreed to a permanent ban from judicial service. The excerpt states that three justices agreed Hawkins should be suspended without pay for at least sixty days.

Holdings

1. A presiding judge with supervisory authority over a master commissioner violates the Code of Judicial Conduct and commits conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by failing to take reasonable measures to ensure prompt disposition of post-conviction matters and proper performance of judicial responsibilities.
2. A master commissioner may not enter a final appealable order in the post-conviction matters at issue; the commissioner must report findings to the judge, who must enter the final order.
3. After granting post-conviction relief, the court must promptly process the order and enter supplementary orders concerning matters such as custody, bail, discharge, arraignment, or retrial when necessary and proper.
4. A judge commits conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by failing to promptly notify the Commission after locating the relevant file and issuing the order under investigation.
5. A sixty-day suspension from the office of judge without pay was the appropriate discipline for Hawkins's proven misconduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Commission proved by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Hawkins committed judicial misconduct by failing to supervise Court 5, permitting delays in post-conviction-relief cases, allowing deficient file-management procedures, and permitting a master commissioner to enter final post-conviction orders.
2. Whether Judge Hawkins committed misconduct by failing to promptly report the location of the Buntin file and issuance of the post-conviction-relief order during the Commission's investigation.
3. Whether the Commission proved misconduct based on Hawkins's alleged misrepresentations concerning the file's archival history and the post-it note, his failure to secure evidence, and his failure to address bailiff Talley's conduct.
4. Whether Judge Hawkins committed misconduct by failing to ensure prompt processing of the Buntin relief order and prompt action concerning Buntin's custody, bail, discharge, or retrial.
5. What sanction was appropriate for the proven judicial misconduct.

Disposition

other