2008 REVIEW OF 
JUDGES’ PERFORMANCE

	The information in this pamphlet is provided to help you decide how you want to vote on the 	judges listed on the 2008 ballot.

		Information on the Arizona Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges 			begins on Page 88.

		Information on the Pima County Superior Court judges begins on Page 91.

		Information on the Maricopa County Superior Court judges begins on Page 99.

		A JUDGE CHECKLIST is provided on the back inside cover of the pamphlet, Page 		115 & 117.

		After reviewing a judge’s information, mark “Yes” or “No” next to the judge’s name 		on the checklist.

		Use the checklist when marking your ballot.

	For more information about the judge review process or the JPR Commission, please contact:

Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
1501 West Washington Street
Suite 221
Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3231

E-mail:  jpr@courts.az.gov

Internet:  www.azjudges.info 

Telephone:  (602) 452-3098

This publication can be provided in alternative formats upon request.

Arizona Supreme Court, COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE, 

RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION’S VOTE ON THE 
APPELLATE COURT JUSTICES AND JUDGES

THE FOLLOWING JUDGES DO NOT MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:

	NONE

THE FOLLOWING JUDGES MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:

	ARIZONA SUPREME COURT:  
Scott Bales

	COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE:  
		Diane M. Johnsen
		Patricia A. Orozco
		Ann A. Scott Timmer
		Sheldon H. Weisberg

	COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO: 
		Garye L. Vasquez

COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO	

JUSTICE/JUDGE REVIEWS

ALL ARIZONA VOTERS VOTE ON THE 
FOLLOWING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

BALES, SCOTT	
Appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court:  2005	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 256
Surveys Returned: 75	Superior Court Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 13
Surveys Returned: 5	
	
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
100%
100%
N/A
N/A
100%
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.

MARICOPA COUNTY VOTERS VOTE ON THE 
FOLLOWING COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I JUDGES

JOHNSEN, DIANE M.
Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I:  2006
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Attorney
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 347
Surveys Returned: 63	Superior Court Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 78
Surveys Returned: 29	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
96%
100%
99%
100%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
91%
100%
N/A
N/A
100%
N/A	

SCOTT TIMMER, ANN A.
Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I:  2000	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed:1,489
Surveys Returned: 309	Superior Court Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 387
Surveys Returned: 103	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
86%
99%
99%
100%
98%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
100%
100%
N/A
N/A
98%
N/A	

APACHE/COCONINO/LA PAZ/MOHAVE/NAVAJO/YAVAPAI/YUMA COUNTY VOTERS VOTE ON THE FOLLOWING COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I JUDGES

OROZCO, PATRICIA A.
Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I:  2004	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 753
Surveys Returned: 123	Superior Court Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 162
Surveys Returned: 40	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
91%
100%
98%
98%
98%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
97%
100%
N/A
N/A
100%
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.

WEISBERG, SHELDON H.
Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I:  1992	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed:  942
Surveys Returned: 190	Superior Court Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 267
Surveys Returned: 53	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
95%
100%
99%
100%
95%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
100%
100%
N/A
N/A
97%
N/A	

COCHISE/GILA/GRAHAM/GREENLEE/PINAL/SANTA CRUZ COUNTY VOTERS VOTE ON THE 
FOLLOWING COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II JUDGE

VASQUEZ, GARYE L.
Appointed to Court of Appeals Division II:  2006	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 187
Surveys Returned: 40	Superior Court Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 44
Surveys Returned: 31	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
88%
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
95%
100%
N/A
N/A
96%
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.

pima county superior court – pima county voters only

RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION’S VOTE ON THE 
PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES

THE FOLLOWING JUDGES DO NOT MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:

	NONE

THE FOLLOWING JUDGES MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:

	Acuña, Edgar B.				Lee, Kenneth
	Aragón, Jr., Gustavo			Leonardo, John S.
	Bernini, Deborah				Miller, Leslie B.
	Cornelio, Carmine			Miller, Michael O.
	Eikleberry, Jane L.			Munger, Clark W.
	Escher, Patricia				Sabalos, Charles S.
	Fields, Richard S.				Simmons, Sarah R.
	Hantman, Howard			Tang, Paul E.
	Kearney, Jan E.				Villarreal, Stephen C.
	Kelly, Virginia C.			Warner, Nanette

	

PIMA COUNTY JUDGE REVIEWS

ACUÑA, EDGAR B.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  1997
	23 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
6 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 170
Surveys Returned: 54	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 93
Surveys Returned: 20	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 40
Surveys Returned: 39	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
93%
95%
89%
62%
99%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
98%
96%
82%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.

ARAGÓN, JR. GUSTAVO
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  2006 
	26 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
3 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 174
Surveys Returned: 47	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 75
Surveys Returned: 29	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 40
Surveys Returned: 29	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
71%
95%
84%
93%
86%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
94%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
93%
96%
96%
96%
N/A
N/A	

BERNINI, DEBORAH
Assignment During Survey Period:  Civil
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  1997
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 174
Surveys Returned: 73	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 155
Surveys Returned: 52	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 29
Surveys Returned: 26	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
95%
99%
95%
96%
99%
93%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

CORNELIO, CARMINE
Assignment During Survey Period:  Family; Presiding Arbitration
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  2002
	28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
1 Commissioner Voted “Does Not Meet”	

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 9
Surveys Returned: 5	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 181
Surveys Returned: 81	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 176
Surveys Returned: 61	Juror 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
95%	Score (See Footnote)
98%
96%
93%
89%
100%
96%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
97%
96%
94%
98%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.
EIKLEBERRY, JANE L.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Juvenile
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  2001
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 112
Surveys Returned: 28	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 290
Surveys Returned: 62	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
96%
99%
99%
98%
100%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
97%
99%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

ESCHER, PATRICIA
Assignment During Survey Period:  Presiding Juvenile
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  1997
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 14
Surveys Returned: 11	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 84
Surveys Returned: 22	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 137
Surveys Returned: 25	Juror 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
94%
88%
90%
87%
N/A
83%	Score (See Footnote)
100%
98%
93%
91%
94%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
98%
100%
99%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

FIELDS, RICHARD S.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal; Assoc. Presiding
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  1997
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 56
Surveys Returned: 35	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 173
Surveys Returned: 43	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 166
Surveys Returned: 60	Juror 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 62
Surveys Returned: 54	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
100%	Score (See Footnote)
98%
100%
99%
100%
98%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
99%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
95%
100%
95%
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.
HANTMAN, HOWARD
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  1994
	26 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
3 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 166
Surveys Returned: 42	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 140
Surveys Returned: 38	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 132
Surveys Returned: 79	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
100%
97%
86%
68%
98%
83%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
96%
97%
99%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

KEARNEY, JAN E.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Presiding Judge
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  2001
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys 
Distributed:100
Surveys Returned: 54	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 19
Surveys Returned: 7	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 9
Surveys Returned: 3	Juror 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
98%
98%
99%
96%
N/A
97%	Score (See Footnote)
100%
100%
100%
100%
96%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

KELLY, VIRGINIA C.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Juvenile
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  2002
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 108
Surveys Returned: 30	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 254
Surveys Returned: 75	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
100%
97%
98%
93%
100%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
97%
95%
96%
97%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website. 
LEE, KENNETH
Assignment During Survey Period:  Family
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  1997
	28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
1 Commissioner Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 119
Surveys Returned: 47	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 249
Surveys Returned: 30	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
96%
99%
98%
95%
100%
86%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
85%
88%
84%
91%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

LEONARDO, JOHN S.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal  
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  1993
	28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
1 Commissioner Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 166
Surveys Returned: 47	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 121
Surveys Returned: 46	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 116
Surveys Returned: 100	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
91%
97%
91%
80%
97%
72%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
97%
95%
96%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

MILLER, LESLIE B.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Civil  
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  1985
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 132
Surveys Returned: 48	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 24
Surveys Returned: 7	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 9
Surveys Returned: 7	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
91%
97%
91%
96%
98%
79%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
92%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
82%
85%
84%
86%
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website. 

MILLER, MICHAEL O.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Civil  
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  2002
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 212
Surveys Returned: 73	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 90
Surveys Returned: 11	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 26
Surveys Returned:17	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
98%
100%
99%
100%
98%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

MUNGER, CLARK W.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Civil; Presiding Probate
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  1997
	27 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
2 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 3
Surveys Returned: 1	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 165
Surveys Returned: 56	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 43
Surveys Returned: 2	Juror 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
100%	Score (See Footnote)
95%
95%
85%
77%
96%
83%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
50%
83%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A 
N/A 
N/A
N/A
N/A	

SABALOS, CHARLES S.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Juvenile
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  1993
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 103
Surveys Returned: 28	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 402
Surveys Returned: 95	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
100%
98%
96%
94%
99%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
97%
98%
97%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A 
N/A 
N/A
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.

SIMMONS, SARAH R.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Presiding Family
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  2006
	28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
Note:  Judge Simmons is a member of the JPR Commission who could not vote on her own performance finding.	

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 13
Surveys Returned: 10	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 64
Surveys Returned: 28	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 221
Surveys Returned: 29	Juror 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
98%
100%
96%
N/A
96%	Score (See Footnote)
95%
99%
95%
98%
98%
89%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
96%
92%
94%
94%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A 
N/A 
N/A
N/A
N/A	

TANG, PAUL E.
Assignment During Survey Period:   Civil
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  2001
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 202
Surveys Returned: 64	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 57
Surveys Returned: 5	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 22
Surveys Returned: 8	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
90%
99%
92%
95%
96%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
89%
96%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100% 
100% 
100%
N/A
N/A	

VILLARREAL, STEPHEN C.
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal  
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  1998
	28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
1 Commissioner Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 188
Surveys Returned: 47	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 108
Surveys Returned: 53	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 78
Surveys Returned: 63	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
92%
99%
98%
99%
89%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
98%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100% 
100% 
100%
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.

WARNER, NANETTE
Assignment During Survey Period:   Criminal
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court:  1986
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 195
Surveys Returned: 51	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 314
Surveys Returned: 74	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 31
Surveys Returned:16	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
97%
100%
97%
96%
89%
92%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
97%
96%
97%
96%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100% 
100% 
100%
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.

RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION’S VOTE ON THE 
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES

THE FOLLOWING JUDGES DO NOT MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE:

	McClennen, Crane

THE FOLLOWING JUDGES MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:

	Abrams, Helene F.		Garcia, Jeanne M.		Miles, Linda H.
	Akers, Linda A.			Gentry-Lewis, Jo Lynn		Miles, Robert E.
	Araneta, Louis A.			Gordon, Michael D.		Oberbillig, Robert H.
	Arellano, Silvia R.		Hannah, Jr. John R.		Padilla, Jose S.
	Baca, Anna M.			Harrison, Cari A.			Potts, Karen A.
	Ballinger, Jr., Eddward P.		Hilliard, Ruth H.			Ryan, Timothy J.
	Blakey II, A. Craig		Hoffman, Kristin			Sanders, Teresa A.
	Buttrick, John A.			Katz, Paul A.			Steinle, III, Roland J.
	Cohen, Bruce R.			Kemp, Michael W.		Stephens, Sherry K.
	Contes, Connie C.		Klein, Andrew G.			Trujillo, Richard J.
	Davis, Glenn M.			Mahoney, Margaret R.		Udall, David K.
	Ditsworth, John R.		McMurdie, Paul J.		Whitten, Christopher T.	
	Dunevant III, Thomas		McNally, Colleen A.		
	Flores, Lisa Daniel		McVey, Michael R.

MARICOPA county superior court – MARICOPA county voters only	

MARICOPA COUNTY JUDGE REVIEWS

ABRAMS, HELENE F.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2005
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 175
Surveys Returned: 47	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 97
Surveys Returned: 9	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 105
Surveys Returned: 36	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
97%
100%
98%
100%
97%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
98%
100%
80%
93%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
97%
92%
96%
93%
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.

AKERS, LINDA A.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  1996
	26 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
3 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 246
Surveys Returned: 50	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 63
Surveys Returned: 7	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 8
Surveys Returned: 3	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
91%
92%
95%
73%
94%
94%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
88%
83%
81%
95%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

ARANETA, LOUIS A.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Juvenile
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  1993
	28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
1 Commissioner Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 92
Surveys Returned: 24	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 330
Surveys Returned: 43	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
100%
93%
98%
89%
82%
91%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
98%
85%
89%
93%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

ARELLANO, SILVIA R.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  1990
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 200
Surveys Returned: 50	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 43
Surveys Returned: 8	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 71
Surveys Returned: 22	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
99%
100%
97%
97%
100%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.
BACA, ANNA M.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Presiding Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  1994
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 57
Surveys Returned: 19	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 23
Surveys Returned: 3	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 13
Surveys Returned:10	Juror 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
95%
96%
94%
95%
N/A
91%	Score (See Footnote)
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
99%
89%
94%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A 
N/A 
N/A
N/A
N/A	

BALLINGER, JR., EDDWARD P.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Family; NE Presiding
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  1998
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 12
Surveys Returned: 4	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 135
Surveys Returned: 33	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 160
Surveys Returned: 24	Juror 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
100%	Score (See Footnote)
100%
97%
100%
97%
99%
94%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
99%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A 
N/A 
N/A
N/A
N/A	

BLAKEY, II, A. CRAIG
Assignment During Survey Period:  Civil
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2002
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 353
Surveys Returned: 70	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 32
Surveys Returned: 5	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 9
Surveys Returned: 4	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
100%
100%
97%
97%
99%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
83%
86%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.
BUTTRICK, JOHN A.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Civil
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2001
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 266
Surveys Returned: 64	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 44
Surveys Returned: 10	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 36
Surveys Returned: 13	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
93%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

COHEN, BRUCE R.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2005
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 123
Surveys Returned: 53	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 316
Surveys Returned: 45	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
98%
98%
98%
97%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

CONTES, CONNIE C.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2002
	28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
1 Commissioner Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 167
Surveys Returned: 40	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 6
Surveys Returned: 2	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed:105
Surveys Returned: 29	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
84%
99%
94%
97%
70%
87%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
0%
25%
11%
50%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
95%
100%
94%
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.
DAVIS, GLENN M.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Civil
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2006
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 244
Surveys Returned: 68	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 89
Surveys Returned: 17	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 34
Surveys Returned: 27	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
93%
96%
92%
98%
96%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
93%
91%
95%
94%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

DITSWORTH, JOHN R.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2001
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 104
Surveys Returned: 9	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 52
Surveys Returned: 16	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 42
Surveys Returned: 17	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
88%
99%
86%
91%
96%
0%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
99%
100%
97%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

DUNEVANT, III, THOMAS
Assignment During Survey Period:  Civil; Presiding Tax
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  1989
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 27
Surveys Returned: 10	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 249
Surveys Returned: 73	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 66
Surveys Returned: 10	Juror 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 8
Surveys Returned: 5	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
100%	Score (See Footnote)
93%
100%
94%
100%
99%
83%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website. 
FLORES, LISA DANIEL
Assignment During Survey Period:  Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2006
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 191
Surveys Returned: 48	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 362
Surveys Returned: 43	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
89%
95%
91%
90%
95%
88%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
87%
89%
79%
87%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

GARCIA, JEANNE M.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2005
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 171
Surveys Returned: 17	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 42
Surveys Returned: 10	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 45
Surveys Returned: 23	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
70%
98%
96%
94%
82%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
95%
87%
92%
97%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
98%
99%
95%
N/A
N/A	

GENTRY-LEWIS, JO LYNN
Assignment During Survey Period:  Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2005
	23 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
6 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 150
Surveys Returned: 50	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 246
Surveys Returned: 43	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
78%
97%
81%
89%
82%
95%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
99%
95%
94%
94%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.

GORDON, MICHAEL D.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2005
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 218
Surveys Returned: 43	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 55
Surveys Returned: 1	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 62
Surveys Returned: 25	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
93%
99%
98%
99%
83%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
99%
95%
N/A
N/A	

HANNAH, JR., JOHN R.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Juvenile
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2005
	28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
1 Commissioner Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 144
Surveys Returned: 43	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 114
Surveys Returned: 10	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
92%
95%
92%
86%
78%
80%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
97%
95%
90%
91%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

HARRISON, CARI A.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2001
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 209
Surveys Returned: 34	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 29
Surveys Returned: 5	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 55
Surveys Returned: 44	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
93%
100%
100%
100%
95%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
92%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
98%
100%
97%
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.

HILLIARD, RUTH H.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  1986
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 173
Surveys Returned: 53	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 304
Surveys Returned: 19	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
98%
100%
99%
91%
98%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
83%
71%
71%
91%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

HOFFMAN, KRISTIN
Assignment During Survey Period:  Civil
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2005
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 541
Surveys Returned: 161	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 70
Surveys Returned: 16	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 59
Surveys Returned: 34	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
92%
99%
94%
98%
99%
95%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

KATZ, PAUL A.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Civil
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  1989
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 248
Surveys Returned: 72	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 62
Surveys Returned: 5	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 26
Surveys Returned: 20	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
97%
100%
98%
96%
98%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.

KEMP, MICHAEL W.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Juvenile
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2005
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 137
Surveys Returned: 38	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 88
Surveys Returned: 15	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
96%
99%
99%
97%
99%
83%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
96%
92%
97%
98%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

KLEIN, ANDREW G.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2001
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 88
Surveys Returned: 19	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 93
Surveys Returned: 17	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 44
Surveys Returned: 22	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

MAHONEY, MARGARET R.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2002
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 283
Surveys Returned: 60	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 90
Surveys Returned: 3	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 98
Surveys Returned: 36	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
99%
98%
99%
100%
98%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
98%
100%
98%
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.

MCCLENNEN, CRANE
Assignment During Survey Period:  Juvenile
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  1997
	10 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
17 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
2 Commissioners Voted “Not Voting”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 135
Surveys Returned: 44	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 162
Surveys Returned: 12	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
89%
84%
78%
60%
70%
80%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
80%
88%
86%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

MCMURDIE, PAUL J.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2005
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 287
Surveys Returned: 45	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 97
Surveys Returned: 85	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 97
Surveys Returned: 94	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
98%
99%
96%
95%
96%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
99%
96%
99%
98%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
99%
100%
99%
N/A
N/A	

MCNALLY, COLLEEN A.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Presiding Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2001
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 37
Surveys Returned: 21	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 43
Surveys Returned: 12	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 189
Surveys Returned: 15	Juror 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
100%	Score (See Footnote)
91%
94%
92%
92%
91%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
93%
88%
89%
85%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A 
N/A 
N/A
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.

MCVEY, MICHAEL R.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  1993
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 199
Surveys Returned: 77	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 464
Surveys Returned: 32	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
98%
96%
95%
92%
96%
94%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
90%
86%
91%
92%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

MILES, LINDA H.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2001
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 169
Surveys Returned: 50	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 222
Surveys Returned: 28	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
95%
93%
92%
88%
94%
94%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
91%
92%
87%
93%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

MILES, ROBERT E.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Civil
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2005
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 405
Surveys Returned: 109	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 65
Surveys Returned: 14	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 36
Surveys Returned: 34	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
98%
100%
98%
99%
99%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
95%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.

OBERBILLIG, ROBERT H.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Juvenile
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  1998
	25 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
4 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 100
Surveys Returned: 31	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 35
Surveys Returned: 11	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
100%
98%
94%
85%
98%
79%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
90%
89%
96%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

PADILLA, JOSE S.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2006
	26 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
3 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 132
Surveys Returned: 50	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 408
Surveys Returned: 27	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
88%
95%
85%
90%
91%
90%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
74%
60%
64%
75%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

POTTS, KAREN A.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2006
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 144
Surveys Returned: 51	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 357
Surveys Returned: 34	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
99%
100%
100%
96%
98%
93%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
91%
81%
86%
92%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.

RYAN, TIMOTHY J.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Assoc. Presiding Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2005
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	

Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories	Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 57
Surveys Returned: 16	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 296
Surveys Returned: 74	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 65
Surveys Returned: 6	Juror 
Responses
Surveys 
Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
94%
90%
93%
98%
N/A
94%	Score (See Footnote)
95%
97%
92%
95%
95%
98%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A 
N/A 
N/A
N/A
N/A	

SANDERS, TERESA A.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2001
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 174
Surveys Returned: 28	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 45
Surveys Returned: 9	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 82
Surveys Returned: 57	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
100%
100%
98%
97%
98%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
99%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

STEINLE, III, ROLAND J.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2001
	25 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
4 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 292
Surveys Returned: 64	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 21
Surveys Returned: 17	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 124
Surveys Returned: 89	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
90%
93%
83%
71%
96%
94%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
98%
99%
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.
STEPHENS, SHERRY K.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2001
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 153
Surveys Returned: 50	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 111
Surveys Returned: 23	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
89%
96%
89%
94%
95%
90%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
95%
86%
83%
89%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A	

TRUJILLO, RICHARD J.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Civil
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2001
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 258
Surveys Returned: 77	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 85
Surveys Returned: 14	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 60
Surveys Returned: 40	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
89%
99%
91%
96%
92%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
83%
83%
81%
76%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
98%
N/A
N/A	

UDALL, DAVID K.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2001
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 251
Surveys Returned: 54	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 107
Surveys Returned: 23	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 77
Surveys Returned: 45	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
94%
99%
98%
99%
99%
100%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
95%
96%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.

WHITTEN, CHRISTOPHER T.
Assignment During Survey Period:  Civil
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court:  2006
	29 Commissioners Voted “Meets”
0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”	
	
Judicial Performance Standards 
Evaluation Categories	Attorney 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 221
Surveys Returned: 74	Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 35
Surveys Returned: 4	Juror 
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 33
Surveys Returned: 27	

Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills	Score (See Footnote)
89%
96%
88%
93%
96%
89%
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	Score (See Footnote)
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A	

FOOTNOTE:  The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “satisfactory”, “very good”, or “superior” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories.  Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials).  The JPR Commission votes “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge “MEETS” Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge.  Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court’s website.

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW JUDGE CHECKLIST

This page is provided to assist you when voting on the judges and justices standing for retention. Remove the sheet from your pamphlet, mark your vote on the checklist, and take the checklist with you when voting. 

Arizona Supreme Court
(All Voters)	Maricopa County Superior Court
(Maricopa County Voters)	

Bales, Scott	
Yes____  No____	
Abrams, Helene F.
Akers, Linda A.
Araneta, Louis A.
Arellano, Silvia R.
Baca, Anna M.
Ballinger, Jr., Eddward P.
Blakey, II, A. Craig
Buttrick, John A.
Cohen, Bruce A.
Contes, Connie C.
Davis, Glenn M.
Ditsworth, John R.
Dunevant, III, Thomas
Flores, Lisa Daniel
Garcia, Jeanne M.
Gentry-Lewis, Jo Lynn
Gordon, Michael D.
Hannah, Jr., John R.
Harrison, Cari A.
Hilliard, Ruth H.
Hoffman, Kristin
Katz, Paul A.
Kemp, Michael W.
Klein, Andrew G.
Mahoney, Margaret R.
McClennen, Crane
McMurdie, Paul J.
McNally, Colleen A.
McVey, Michael R.
Miles, Linda H.
Miles, Robert E.
Oberbillig, Robert H.
Padilla, Jose S.
Potts, Karen A.
Ryan, Timothy J.
Sanders, Teresa A.
Steinle, III, Roland J.
Stephens, Sherry K.
Trujillo, Richard J.
Udall, David K.
Whitten, Christopher T.	
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____
Yes____  No____	

Court of Appeals Division I
(Maricopa County Voters)
			
Johnsen, Diane M.	Yes____  No____			
Scott Timmer, Ann A.	Yes____  No____			

Court of Appeals, Division I
(Apache/Coconino/La Paz/Mohave/Navajo/
Yavapai/Yuma County Voters)
			
Orozco, Patricia A.	Yes____  No____			
Weisberg, Sheldon H.	Yes____  No____			

Court of Appeals, Division II
(Cochise/Gila/Graham/Greenlee/Pinal/
Santa Cruz County Voters)
			
Vasquez, Garye L.	Yes____  No____			

Pima County Superior Court
(Pima County Voters)
			
Acuña, Edgar B.	Yes____  No____			
Aragón, Jr., Gustavo	Yes____  No____			
Bernini, Deborah	Yes____  No____			
Cornelio, Carmine	Yes____  No____			
Eikleberry, Jane, L.	Yes____  No____			
Escher, Patricia 	Yes____  No____			
Fields, Richard S.	Yes____  No____			
Hantman, Howard	Yes____  No____			
Kearney, Jan E.	Yes____  No____			
Kelly, Virginia C.	Yes____  No____			
Lee, Kenneth	Yes____  No____			
Leonardo, John S.	Yes____  No____			
Miller, Leslie B.	Yes____  No____			
Miller, Michael O.	Yes____  No____			
Munger, Clark W.	Yes____  No____			
Sabalos, Charles S.	Yes____  No____			
Simmons, Sarah R.	Yes____  No____			
Tang, Paul E.	Yes____  No____			
Villarreal, Stephen C.	Yes____  No____			
Warner, Nanette	Yes____  No____