Preview:

IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NOS.  06-083,  06-091,  06-099,
and  06-104 STANLEY L. ALLEN, Respondent
No.  463A07
FILED:  7 DECEMBER  2007
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                                                           ad 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 m                                                                 he 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.




-2-
ORDER OF CENSURE
In a letter dated  18 May  2006, the Judicial Standards
Commission  (Commission) notified Judge Stanley L. Allen
(respondent) that it had ordered a preliminary investigation to
determine whether formal proceedings under Commission Rule  9
should be instituted against him.    On  24 April  2007, Special
Counsel for the Commission filed a complaint alleging in
pertinent part:
3.    The respondent engaged in conduct
inappropriate to his judicial office in legal
proceedings involving Timothy Dwayne Carter
(Carter), who was a former client of the
respondent’s, and with whom the respondent
maintained both a  “father-like” and business
relationship, as follows:
a)    The respondent verbally ordered
Rockingham County Magistrate J. Michael
Austin, on April  2,  2006, to set bond for
Carter in the amount of  $500.00 unsecured, in
file number  06CR051223;
b)    The respondent verbally ordered
Rockingham County Magistrate Jason  0.
Lawrence, on April  3,  2006, to set bond for
Carter in the amount of  $500.00 unsecured, in
file number  06CR051250;
c)    The respondent verbally ordered
Rockingham County Magistrate William L.
Rumley, on April  12,  2006, to set bond for
Carter in the amount of  $500.00 unsecured, in
file number  06CR051420;
d)    On April  28,  2006, the
[r]espondent approached Chief District Court
Judge Frederick B. Wilkins, Jr., in Judge
Wilkins’s chambers immediately prior to Judge
Wilkins opening court, and requested Judge
Wilkins  “go easy” on Carter when setting
bond.    The respondent stated he had counseled
Carter and that he believed Carter would
behave.    The respondent stated he had
arranged for the bail bond firm, Bond U Out,
which rented office space from the
respondent, to post bond for Carter.    The




-3-
respondent further stated that Carter was to
perform some air conditioning work for the
respondent, and the respondent really needed
to have Carter out of jail;
e)    The respondent signed an Ex
Parte Emergency Order And Notice of Hearing,
granting emergency temporary custody of three
minor children to Timothy Dwayne Carter on
April  3,  2006, in the matter of Timothy
Dwayne Carter vs. Regina Aileen Carter,
Rockingham County file number  06CVD579.
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 in




-4-
violation 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)).
We 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

Download 463-07-1.pdf

South Carolina Law