All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the North Carolina Reports and North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the North Carolina Reports and North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NOS. 06-083, 06-091, 06-099,
and 06-104 STANLEY L. ALLEN, Respondent
Judges_censure of district court judge_violations of Code of
Judicial Conduct
A district court judge is censured for violations of
the Code of Judicial Conduct and for conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice that brings the judicial office into
disrepute based upon his actions in (1) verbally ordering county
magistraties to set unsecured bond for a former client in the
amount of $500.00 in each of three cases, (2) requesting that the
Chief District Court Judge “go easy” on his former client when
setting bond because he had arranged for a bail bond firm to post
bond for the former client and needed the former client out of
jail to perform air conditioning work for him, and (3) signing an
ex parte order granting the former client emergency temporary
custody of three minor children in a pending case.
This matter is before the Court pursuant to N.C.G.S. .
7A-376 upon a recommendation by the Judicial Standards Commission
entered 5 September 2007 that respondent Stanley L. Allen, a
Judge of the General Court of Justice, District Court Division,
State of North Carolina Judicial District Seventeen-A, be
censured for conduct in violation of Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(4),
3C(1)(a), and 3D of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct
and for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that
brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation of
N.C.G.S. . 7A-376. Calendered for argument in the Supreme Court
on 15 November 2007, but determined on the record without oral
argument pursuant to Rule 30(f) of the North Carolina Rules of
Appellate Procedure and Rule 2(c) of the Rules for Supreme Court
Review of Recommendations of the Judicial Standards Commission.
No counsel for Judicial Standards Commission or
respondent.
4. The actions of the respondent are in
violation of Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(4),
3C(1)(a) and 3D of the North Carolina Code of
Judicial Conduct, constitute conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice
that brings the judicial office into
disrepute in violation of N.C.G.S. § 7A-
376(b), and constitute willful misconduct in
violation of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b).
After serving respondent with a notice of formal
hearing concerning the allegations, the Commission conducted a
hearing on 10 August 2007, at which respondent waived formal
hearing and stipulated to the relevant conduct alleged in the
complaint. Respondent further stipulated that such conduct
violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(4), 3C(1)(a), and 3D
of the North
Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and constituted conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the
judicial office into disrepute.
On 5 September 2007, the Commission issued its
recommendation, concluding on the basis of clear and convincing
evidence that respondent's conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B,
3A(4), 3C(1)(a), and 3D
of the North Carolina Code of Judicial
Conduct and constituted conduct
prejudicial to the administration
of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute inviolation of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b). The Commission recommended
that this Court censure respondent.
“In reviewing the Commission's recommendations pursuant
to N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-376 and 7A-377, this Court acts as a court of
original jurisdiction, rather than in its typical capacity as an
appellate court.” In re Daisy, 359 N.C. 622, 623, 614 S.E.2d
529, 530 (2005) (per curiam) (citing In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109,
147, 250 S.E.2d 890, 912 (1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 929
(1979)). We have previously observed that “[s]uch proceedings
are not meant 'to punish the individual but to maintain the honor
and dignity of the judiciary and the proper administration of
justice.'” Id. at 624, 614 S.E.2d at 531 (quoting In re Nowell,
293 N.C. 235, 241, 237 S.E.2d 246, 250 (1977)).
W
e conclude that respondent's actions constitute
conduct in violation of Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(4), 3C(1)(a), and 3D
of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct.
Therefore,
pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-376 and 7A-377 and Rule 3 of the Rules
for Supreme Court Review of Recommendations of the Judicial
Standards Commission, it is ordered that respondent, Stanley L.
Allen, be and is hereby censured for violations of the Code of
Judicial Conduct and for conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice that brings the judicial office into
disrepute.
By order of the Court in Conference, this 6th day of
December, 2007.
Hudson, J.
For the Court
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***