In the Matter of: Judge Lance P. Timbreza ( 2019 )

The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado
2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203
2019 CO 98Supreme Court Case No. 19SA260
Original Proceeding in Judicial Discipline
Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, 19 CJD 131
________________________________________________________________________
In the Matter of: Judge Lance P. Timbreza
________________________________________________________________________
Public Censure and Suspension
en banc
December 2, 2019
________________________________________________________________________
Appearing for the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline:
William J. Campbell, Executive Director
Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Judge Lance P. Timbreza:
David Beller
Recht Kornfeld P.C.
Denver, Colorado
PER CURIAM
¶1 Judge Lance P. Timbreza, you appear before this Court for imposition of
discipline based upon violation of the duties of your office as a District Court
Judge for the 21st Judicial District. The Colorado Commission on Judicial
Discipline (“the Commission”) recommends approval of the Stipulation for Public
Censure and Suspension (“the Stipulation”), which you and the Commission
executed pursuant to Rules 36(c), 36(e), and 37(e) of the Colorado Rules of Judicial
Discipline (“RJD”). Consistent with the Stipulation, the Commission recommends
that this Court issue a public censure and a twenty-eight-day suspension of your
judicial duties without pay. This Court adopts the Commission’s
recommendation.
¶2 In the Stipulation, you and the Commission agreed to the following facts
and conclusions:
1. On Saturday afternoon, June 15, 2019, in Grand Junction, Colorado,
Judge Timbreza was arrested and charged with Driving Under the
Influence and Careless Driving.
2. According to witnesses and the arresting officer’s report, Judge Timbreza
consumed several glasses of wine at a vineyard and, after leaving the
vineyard, drank more wine at a poolside party.
3. As he drove home from the party, Judge Timbreza crashed his vehicle
into roadside trees and bushes while avoiding a collision with another
vehicle.
4. On June 17, 2019, Judge Timbreza contacted the Commission by phone
to report his arrest and the charges against him.
2
5. On September 3, 2019, Judge Timbreza pled guilty to Driving While
Ability Impaired and was sentenced to one year of probation, alcohol
monitoring, a $200 fine, useful public service, and two days of suspended
jail time.
6. By driving while his ability was impaired by alcohol, Judge Timbreza
failed to maintain the high standards of judicial conduct required of a
judge. Judge Timbreza’s conduct violated Canon Rules 1.1 and 1.2 of the
Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon Rule 1.1 requires a judge to
comply with the law, and Canon Rule 1.2 requires that a judge at all times
shall act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary
and avoids impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
7. Judge Timbreza acknowledged that his failure to comply with his
obligations under Canon Rules 1.1 and 1.2 and with the laws he was
sworn to enforce has had an adverse effect on the public’s view of the
judiciary, on the morale of fellow judges locally and statewide, and on
his own integrity as a judicial officer.
8. After a thorough review of all the circumstances and consideration of
disciplinary measures applied in other states, the Commission concluded
that this was not a typical Driving Under the Influence case. This case
involved significant aggravating factors, including: Judge Timbreza’s
awareness as a judicial officer of the risks and consequences of driving
while his ability was impaired by alcohol; according to his colleague,
ignoring advice not to drive home from the party; the near miss collision
with another vehicle; and his refusal to take a blood-alcohol test. On the
other hand, the Commission acknowledged Judge Timbreza’s record of
service to the Colorado Bar Association and in various community
activities.
¶3 Based on these facts and conclusions, the Commission agreed in the
Stipulation to recommend that you be publicly censured and then suspended from
your judicial duties without pay for twenty-eight days. And based on the same
facts and conclusions, you agreed in the Stipulation to waive your right to a
3
hearing in formal proceedings and to be publicly censured and then suspended
from your judicial duties without pay for twenty-eight days. The Stipulation
deferred to this Court’s discretion the determination of whether the suspension
should be served in a twenty-eight-day period or in two separate fourteen-day
periods.
¶4 RJD 37(e), titled “Stipulated Resolution of Formal Proceedings,” allows the
Commission to file with this Court a “stipulated resolution” as the Commission’s
recommendation in a disciplinary proceeding. RJD 36, in turn, identifies the
sanctions the Commission may recommend. The Commission has authority to
recommend “one or more” of the listed sanctions. RJD 36. As relevant here, RJD
36(c) provides that this Court may “[s]uspend the Judge without pay for a
specified period,” and RJD 36(e) permits this Court to “[r]eprimand or censure the
Judge publicly . . . by written order.” Accord Colo. Const. art. VI, § 23(3)(f)
(“Following receipt of a recommendation from the commission, the supreme court
. . . shall order removal, retirement, suspension, censure, reprimand, or discipline,
as it finds just and proper . . . .”). Under RJD 40, after considering the evidence
and the law, this Court must “issue a decision.” Among other things, the Court
may “adopt . . . the recommendation of the Commission.” RJD 40. If the
Commission recommends adoption of a stipulated resolution, “the Court shall
order it to become effective and issue any sanction provided in the stipulated
4
resolution, unless the Court determines that its terms do not comply with Rule
37(e) or are not supported by the record of proceedings.” Id.
¶5 Upon consideration of the law, the evidence, the record of the proceedings,
the Stipulation, and the Commission’s recommendation, and being sufficiently
advised in the premises, this Court concludes that the terms of the Stipulation
comply with RJD 37(e) and are supported by the record of the proceedings.
Therefore, this Court orders the Stipulation to become effective and issues the
agreed-upon sanctions.
¶6 This Court hereby publicly censures you, Judge Lance P. Timbreza, for
failing to maintain the high standards of judicial conduct required of a judge; for
violating Canon Rule 1.1, which requires a judge to comply with the law; and for
violating Canon Rule 1.2, which requires that a judge at all times shall act in a
manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary and avoids impropriety
and the appearance of impropriety. Further, this Court hereby suspends you,
Judge Lance P. Timbreza, from your judicial duties without pay for twenty-eight
5
days, such suspension to be served by January 31, 2020, in one period of
twenty-eight days.1
1 Pursuant to RJD 6.5(a) and RJD 37(e), the Stipulation, the Commission’s
recommendation, and the record of proceedings became public when the
Commission filed its recommendation with this Court.
6