In Re Shipley ( 2018 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 425A17
Filed 6 April 2018
IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NO. 15-057
WILLIAM HENRY SHIPLEY, Respondent
This matter is before the Court pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-376 and -377 upon
a recommendation by the Judicial Standards Commission entered 29 November 2017
that Respondent William Henry Shipley, a Deputy Commissioner of the North
Carolina Industrial Commission, be publicly reprimanded for conduct in violation of
Canons 1 and 2A 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-376.1 This matter was calendared for
argument in the Supreme Court on 10 January 2018 but determined on the record
without briefs or oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(f) of the North Carolina Rules of
Appellate Procedure and Rule 3(c) of the Rules for Supreme Court Review of
Recommendations of the Judicial Standards Commission.
No counsel for Judicial Standards Commission or Respondent.
1Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 97-78.1, “[t]he Code of Judicial Conduct for judges of the
General Court of Justice and the procedure for discipline of judges in Article 30 of Chapter
7A of the General Statutes shall apply to commissioners and deputy commissioners” of the
North Carolina Industrial Commission. N.C.G.S. § 97-78.1 (2017).
IN RE: W.H.S.
Order of the Court
ORDER
The issue before this Court is whether Deputy Commissioner William Henry
Shipley (Respondent) should be publicly reprimanded for violations of Canons 1 and
2A of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct amounting to conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute in
violation of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b). Respondent has not challenged the findings of fact
made by the Judicial Standards Commission (the Commission) or opposed the
Commission’s recommendation that he be publicly reprimanded by this Court.
On 10 February 2017, the Commission Counsel filed a Statement of Charges
against Respondent alleging that he had “engaged in conduct inappropriate to his
office when, on April 2, 2015, Respondent wrecked his vehicle while driving under the
influence of an impairing substance, putting at risk his own life and the lives of
others.” According to the allegations in the Statement of Charges, on that night
Respondent’s vehicle struck another moving vehicle after Respondent failed to yield
the right of way when attempting to turn left. Neither Respondent nor the other
driver appeared injured; both declined EMS attention. The Statement of Charges
further stated that Respondent registered a blood alcohol level of .08 when tested at
the local detention center. He was charged with driving while impaired and failing
to yield, charges which were later dismissed. Respondent voluntarily reported these
charges to the Commission and fully cooperated with the Commission’s inquiry into
this matter. In the Statement of Charges, the Commission Counsel asserted that
-2-
IN RE: W.H.S.
Order of the Court
Respondent’s actions on 2 April 2015 “constitute[d] conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, or otherwise
constitutes grounds for disciplinary proceedings pursuant to Chapter 7A, Article 30
and Chapter 97, Article 1 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.”
On 24 March 2017, Respondent filed an answer in which he admitted in part
and denied in part the allegations in the Statement of Charges. Specifically, he
denied that he had failed to yield the right of way when turning left and that his blood
alcohol level had been .08. On 2 October 2017, Respondent and the Commission
Counsel filed a number of joint evidentiary, factual, and disciplinary stipulations as
permitted by Commission Rule 22 that tended to support a decision to publicly
reprimand Respondent. On 13 October 2017, the Commission heard this matter.
On 29 November 2017, the Commission filed a Recommendation of Judicial
Discipline, in which it made the following findings of fact:
1. Around 9:00 p.m. on 2 April 2015, Respondent
was travelling northbound on U.S. Route 70 (Glenwood
Avenue), a public street/highway in Raleigh, North
Carolina. As Respondent reached the area of Glenwood
Avenue north of downtown Raleigh known as Five Points,
he attempted a left-hand turn onto Fairview Road. While
engaged in the turn, another vehicle travelling on
Glenwood Avenue collided with Respondent’s vehicle.
2. Shortly after the vehicle collision occurred,
Deputy Sheriff Josh Legan of the Wake County Sheriff’s
[Office] arrived at the scene. After Respondent voluntarily
submitted to several standardized field sobriety tests,
Deputy Legan formed the opinion that Respondent had
-3-
IN RE: W.H.S.
Order of the Court
consumed a sufficient quantity of alcohol so that his mental
and physical faculties were appreciably impaired.
3. At the local detention center, Respondent
submitted to two (2) Intoximeter Intox EC/IR II tests.
Respondent’s alcohol concentration was reported as .08
grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Deputy Legan
then cited Respondent for driving while impaired and
failing to yield the right of way.
4. On 7 April 2015, Respondent voluntarily
reported the charges to the Commission and fully
cooperated with the Commission’s inquiry into this matter.
5. Respondent’s charges were set for trial in
Wake County District Court on 8 September 2016. The
prosecution failed to produce Deputy Legan as a witness,
and Respondent’s charges were dismissed by the Wake
County District Attorney’s Office after their motion to
continue was denied by the presiding judge.
(Citations omitted.) Based upon these findings of fact, the Commission concluded as
a matter of law that:
1. Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct sets
forth the broad principle that “[a] judge should uphold the
integrity and independence of the judiciary.” To do so,
Canon 1 requires that a “judge should participate in
establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should
personally observe, appropriate standards of conduct to
ensure that the integrity and independence of the judiciary
shall be preserved.”
2. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
generally mandates that “[a] judge should avoid
impropriety in all the judge’s activities.” Canon 2A
specifies that “[a] judge should respect and comply with the
law and should conduct himself/herself at all times in a
manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary.”
-4-
IN RE: W.H.S.
Order of the Court
3. The Commission’s findings of fact show that
Respondent was involved in a vehicle accident on 2 April
2015, after which breath alcohol testing resulted in a report
showing that Respondent’s alcohol concentration was .08
grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. As a result,
Respondent was cited for driving under the influence of an
impairing substance and failing to yield the right of way in
connection with that accident, although the criminal case
was ultimately dismissed for procedural reasons.
4. The Commission concludes that by driving
under the influence of an impairing substance and
thereafter becoming involved in a vehicle accident,
Respondent put his own life and the lives of others at risk,
and thus failed to personally observe appropriate
standards of conduct necessary to preserve the integrity of
the judiciary in violation of Canon 1 of the North Carolina
Code of Judicial Conduct and failed to comply with the law
and conduct himself in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity of the judiciary in violation of
Canon 2A of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct.
5. Upon the agreement of Respondent and the
Commission’s independent review of the Stipulation and
the record, the Commission further concludes that
Respondent’s violations of Canon 1 and Canon 2A of the
Code of Judicial Conduct amount to conduct prejudicial to
the administration of justice that brings the judicial office
into disrepute, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A- 376(b).
(Brackets in original and citations omitted.) Based upon these findings of fact and
conclusions of law, the Commission recommended that this Court publicly reprimand
Respondent for “driving under the influence of an impairing substance and thereafter
becoming involved in a vehicle accident.” The Commission based this
-5-
IN RE: W.H.S.
Order of the Court
recommendation on the Commission’s earlier findings and conclusions and the
following additional dispositional determinations:
1. Respondent agreed to enter into the
Stipulation and Agreement for Stated Disposition to bring
closure to this matter and because of his concern for
protecting the integrity of the judiciary and the Industrial
Commission.
2. Respondent has a good reputation in his
community.
3. Respondent voluntarily completed an alcohol
education program.
4. The actions identified by the Commission as
misconduct by Respondent appear to be isolated and do not
form any sort of recurring pattern of misconduct.
5. Respondent self-reported the incident of 2
April 2015 to the Commission and has been fully
cooperative with the Commission’s investigation,
voluntarily providing information about the incident.
6. Respondent’s record of service to the
Industrial Commission, the profession, and the community
at large is otherwise exemplary.
7. Respondent agrees to accept a
recommendation from the Commission that the North
Carolina Supreme Court publicly reprimand him for his
conduct and acknowledges that the conduct set out in the
Stipulation establishes by clear and convincing evidence
that his conduct is in violation of the North Carolina Code
of Judicial Conduct and is prejudicial to the administration
of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute in
violation of North Carolina General Statute § 7A-376(b).
8. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-377(a5),
which requires that at least five members of the
-6-
IN RE: W.H.S.
Order of the Court
Commission concur in a recommendation of public
discipline to the Supreme Court, all six Commission
members present at the hearing of this matter concur in
this recommendation to publicly reprimand Respondent.
(Citations omitted.)
When reviewing a recommendation from the Commission in a judicial
discipline proceeding, “the Supreme Court ‘acts as a court of original jurisdiction,
rather than in its typical capacity as an appellate court.’ ” In re Mack, 369 N.C. 236,
249, 794 S.E.2d 266, 273 (2016) (order) (quoting In re Hartsfield, 365 N.C. 418, 428,
722 S.E.2d 496, 503 (2012) (order)). In conducting an independent evaluation of the
evidence, “[w]e have discretion to ‘adopt the Commission’s findings of fact if they are
supported by clear and convincing evidence, or [we] may make [our] own findings.’ ”
Id. at 249, 794 S.E.2d at 273 (quoting In re Hartsfield, 365 N.C. at 428, 722 S.E.2d at
503 (second and third sets of brackets in original)). “The scope of our review is to
‘first determine if the Commission’s findings of fact are adequately supported by clear
and convincing evidence, and in turn, whether those findings support its conclusions
of law.’ ” Id. at 249, 794 S.E.2d at 274 (quoting In re Hartsfield, 365 N.C. at 429, 722
S.E.2d at 503).
After careful review, this Court concludes that the Commission’s findings of
fact, including the dispositional determinations set out above, are supported by clear,
cogent, and convincing evidence in the record. In addition, we conclude that the
Commission’s findings of fact support its conclusions of law. As a result, we accept
-7-
IN RE: W.H.S.
Order of the Court
the Commission’s findings and conclusions and adopt them as our own. Based upon
those findings and conclusions and the recommendation of the Commission, we
conclude and adjudge that Respondent should be publicly reprimanded.
Therefore, pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-376(b) and -377(a5), it is ordered that
Respondent William Henry Shipley be PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED for violations of
Canons 1 and 2A of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct amounting to
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into
disrepute in violation of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b).
By order of the Court in Conference, this the 6th day of April, 2018.
s/Morgan, J.
For the Court
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this
the 6th day of April, 2018.
Amy Funderburk
Clerk of the Supreme Court
s/M.C. Hackney
Assistant Clerk
-8-