In Re Shipley , 370 N.C. 595 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                 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-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 425A17

Citation Numbers: 811 S.E.2d 556, 370 N.C. 595

Filed Date: 4/6/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024