The Arizona Superior Court in Pima County Annual Report Fiscal Year 2005 Mission Statement It is our purpose to provide the timely, fair and efficient administration of justice under law, in a manner that instills and sustains the public’s confidence in the judicial system. …………………………………………..…………….…...………………….1 The Bench The Court Court Jurisdiction Court Administration Organizational Chart .………………………...………………………………...….....2 Financial Overview ……………………..…………………….…………………..……..3 Appropriations Sources of Funding Program Expenditures Revenues Statistical Overview ……………………………………….…………..……...………...5 Courtwide Caseloads Criminal Caseloads Civil Caseloads Family Law Caseloads Probate Caseloads Adult Probation ………………………..…………………………………….………….7 Mission Statement APETS Quality Assurance Program Evidence-Based Practices Probation Population Standard Probation Intensive Probation Specialty Caseloads The Assessment Center Drug Court Officer Safety DTEF Education Services Recognition of Excellence Personnel and Budget Guiding Principles FY 2005 Highlights ………………………………………………………..…………...12 Comm. Stephen Rubin Changes in Leadership Conciliation Court Calendar Services Courtroom Observations In the Jury Room Courts Are Us Court Interpreters Jury Commissioner Law Library Self-Service Center Mental Health Court Pretrial Services Emergency Coordinators Table of Contents The Court The Court The Bench The Arizona Superior Court in Pima County is the second largest superior court in the state. The bench comprises 28 full-time judges who are nominated for office by the Pima County Commission on Trial Court Appointments and appointed by the governor. The Hon Michael Cruikshank, criminal bench; The Hon. Jan Kearney, family law bench; The Hon. Clark Munger, probate bench; The Hon. Carmine Cornelio, Arbitration; and the Hon. Barbara Sattler, Drug Court. The Hon. Nanette Warner was appointed to preside over the Mental Health Specialty Court. The Court While there were no new judges appointed to the bench by Gov. Janet Napolitano during FY 2005, the court proposed to the state and county governments that two new judicial divisions be created. By statute, the court is entitled to the appointment of one judicial officer for each 30,000 persons living within the jurisdiction of the court. Those new judges are expected to be appointed to the bench during FY 2006. Hon. John Leonardo Presiding Judge Each judge stands for retention in office during a general election and serves a four-year term if retained. The court also has three full-time judges protempore, 16 full-time commissioners, two hearing officers and one part-time commissioner who are appointed by the presiding judge of the court through a local merit selection process. Judges are assigned on a rotating basis to one of five benches or departments: criminal, civil, probate, family law and juvenile. A presiding judge leads each bench. Generally, judges maintain their bench assignments for two to five years. In FY 2005, the Hon. Richard Fields was appointed as associate presiding judge for the superior court; the Hon. Charles Harrington was appointed presiding judge for the civil bench and the Hon. Patricia Escher was appointed presiding judge of the juvenile bench. Continuing their duties as presiding judges of the other benches were: Court Jurisdiction The court’s jurisdiction extends to almost any type of case, except small claims, minor offenses and violations of city codes and ordinances. The Superior Court has jurisdiction over: ●Criminal felony and some misdemeanor cases; ●Civil cases involving sums of money in excess of $10,000; ●Forcible entry and detainer cases; 1 ●Dissolutions of marriage, adoptions and other family-related matters; ●Probate matters; and ●Appeals from limited jurisdiction courts throughout Pima County. The presiding judge of superior court designates the presiding judge of juvenile court, and assigns its judges and commissioners. Its presiding judge, as established under state law, separately administers the juvenile court. The Juvenile Court has jurisdiction over delinquent and incorrigible youth in Pima County, as well as matters involving dependent children who are the victims of abuse, neglect or abandonment. The court is located at 2225 East Ajo Way and is staffed by over 500 employees. Court Administration Under the direction of the presiding judge, the court administrator is responsible for the non-judicial operations of the court. To that end, court administration’s departments include: financial services, human resources, training and education, facilities management and information and technology services. Also reporting to the court administrator are adult probation, calendar services, court interpreters, the court reporters’ pool, jury services, the county law library and pre-trial services. Presiding Judge Clerk of the Superior Court Associate Presiding Judge Education & Training Court Administrator Community Relations Civil Bench Deputy Court Administrator Clinical Liaison Probate Bench Family Law Bench Adult Probation Calendar Services Conciliation Court Court Interpreters Criminal Bench Facilities Management Financial Management Juvenile Bench Human Resources Law Library Jury Commissioner ITSD Department Pretrial Services 2 Research & Statistics Court Reporters Organizational Chart Court Management Team Financial Overview Appropriations The court’s budget for FY 2005 totaled nearly $37 million, supported with funds received from Pima County, the state of Arizona, and special revenue funds. The special revenue funds include fees for probation, conciliation court, law library, drug court, and court automation. The court also benefits from grants, which in FY 2005, amounted to approximately 1 percent of total funding. The charts illustrate the level of funding received from each of these primary funding sources in FY 2004 and FY 2005. Sources of Funding ~ FY 2004 and FY 2005 The relationship between the court’s funding sources remained the same as FY 2004. Both county and fee fund expenditures increased over FY 2004 levels. While state funding decreased slightly, grant increases offset that small decline. Due to the stabilization and partial restoration of prior state funding losses, as well as increases received from the county for salary and benefit increases, the superior court has been able to meet most needs of the court without depleting special revenue fund balances. The table illustrates changes that occurred in each of our primary funding sources during FY 2005 as compared to FY 2004. In the case of county, state, and grant funding, the amounts represented are actual appropriations received from each source. The fee amounts reflect actual expenditures rather than an appropriation as these funds are managed in an enterprise fashion. Changes in Funding by Source In FY 2005, appropriations from Pima County increased by $1,134,338 amounting to a 4.75 percent increase over FY 2004. This increase was comprised pri- marily of funds necessary to annualize salary increases approved by the Board of Supervisors during the previous year and to fund significant cost increases in Arizona State Retirement System contributions. In FY 2005, court-wide state funding decreased by $60,892 or -.70 percent. Grants received by the court increased by $317,600 Funding Source Pima County State Funding Fees (expenditures) Grants primarily due to funding from the Administrative Office of the Courts for the AGAVE project. Fee expenditures increased by $506,246 mostly as a result of projects paid by the Court Automation Fee fund. The balance of this increase is attributable to increases in salary and benefit costs in the Conciliation Court and probation fee funds. FY 2004 FY 2005 23,890,204 25,024,542 +4.75 percent 8,638,668 8,577,776 -0.70 percent 2,261,250 2,767,496 +22.39 percent 146,889 Total $34,937,011 Change 464,489 +216.22 percent $36,834,303 +5.43 percent Sources of Funding for both FY 2004 and FY 2005 80% 70% 60% Pima County General Fund 68% 50% 40% 30% 20% State Funding 25% 10% Fees 7% 0% Pima County General Fund 3 State Funding Fees In FY 2005, superior court expenditures totaled $36.8 million. Functionally, these expenditures can be broken out as seen below: Primary Revenues ~ FY 2005 Probation Fees $1,508,996 Restitution $1,347,015 Civil Filing Fees $ 764,145 Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund $ 651,156 Domestic Relations Fund $ 493,053 Superior Court Automation Fund $ 406,916 Criminal Fines $ 222,328 Law Library Fund $ 217,380 Drug Court $ 61,794 It should be noted that with the exception of court special revenue funds such as the law library, conciliation court, adult probation, and drug court fee funds, the court does not retain these monies. 4 Financial Overview Program Expenditures for FY 2005 Statistical Overview Courtwide Caseload Activity FILINGS 35,000 FY04 30,000 Probate 10% FY05 Family Law 35% Criminal 26% 25,000 Civil 29% 20,000 15,000 DISPOSITIONS Probate 8% 10,000 Family Law 35% Criminal 26% 5,000 0 FILINGS DISPOSITIONS Civil 31% PENDING A review of the statistics will show that the number of dispositions closely tracks the number of filings for the civil, criminal and family benches. This balancing of filings and dispositions is true for all benches except probate. For the probate bench, the large number of pending cases reflect the years of judicial review these cases typically require before disposition. As the population ages and increases in Pima County, the number of pending probate cases will grow commensurately. PENDING Family Law 16% Probate 59% Civil 12% Criminal 13% Criminal Bench Caseload Activity Criminal defendant filings increased 15 percent over FY 2003-04. DUI and drug cases outrank all other charges filed with Burglary and Robbery holding second place. Criminal case dispositions increased 15 percent over last year and the number of pending criminal cases increased 8 percent. Felony cases broken down by final disposition method shows that 78 percent were closed by plea, 8 percent were closed by trial and the remaining 14 percent were dismissed. Four year trends indicate a 6 percent increase in case filings, an 8 percent increase in case dispositions and pending cases increasing by 4 percent. FELONY MISDEMEANOR & UNCLASSIFIED APPEALS JP/COURT TOTAL Pending 7/1/04 3,561 65 56 3,682 New Cases Filed 5,717 467 159 6,343 Total Caseload 9,278 532 215 10,025 FY 4004-05 DISPOSITIONS: Jury Trials Commenced 338 338 Court Trials Commenced 105 105 4,269 4,269 Pleas of Guilty Dismissals/Removed 777 415 Affirmed/Reversed 5 1,197 152 152 Total Dispositions 5,489 415 157 6,061 Pending 6/30/05 3,789 117 58 3,964 5 TortMotor Vehicle 988 TortNon Motor 434 Medical Malpractice 101 Contract 881 Eminent Domain 48 Lower Court Appeals 30 Nonclassified 1,311 TOTAL 3,793 New Cases Filed 1,643 561 110 1,993 480 88 2,329 7,204 Total Caseload 2,631 995 211 2,874 528 118 3,640 10,997 18 47 5 29 0 10 104 213 Judgment Entered 1,216 415 55 1,326 432 41 1,663 5,148 Other Dispositions 487 156 33 677 10 36 663 2,062 Total Dispositions 1,721 618 93 2,032 442 87 2,430 7,423 910 377 118 842 86 31 1,210 3,574 FY 2004-05 Pending 7/1/04 DISPOSITIONS: Transferred Out Pending 6/30/05 Family Law Bench Caseload Activity Family Law case filings increased 2 percent over FY 2003-04. Case dispositions remained the same while pending cases increased 7 percent. Four-year trends indicate a 2 percent decrease in case filings, a 2 percent decrease in dispositions, and a 1 percent increase in pending cases. Dissolutions 1,695 Separations 34 Annulment 17 Paternity 813 Other Domestic 1,834 TOTAL 4,393 New Cases Filed 4,528 102 51 1,898 2,076 8,655 Total Caseload 6,223 136 68 2,711 3,910 13,048 Transferred Out 3 1 0 4 3 11 Decree Granted 3,463 58 29 Other Dispositions 1,440 45 32 1,962 1,303 4,782 Total Dispositions 4,906 104 61 1,966 1,306 8,343 Pending 6/30/05 1,317 32 7 745 2,604 4,705 FY 2004-05 Pending 7/1/04 DISPOSITIONS: 3,550 Probate Bench Caseload Activity Probate case filings have decreased 3 percent over last year. Case dispositions have increased by 3 percent while pending cases have increased 2 percent. Four year trends indicate a 14 percent decrease in case filings, a 21 percent decrease in dispositions, and a 9 percent increase in pending cases. Estate and Trust Administration 6,580 Guardianships and Conservatorships 10,587 Adult Adoptions 107 TOTAL 17,274 Initial Petitions Filed 1,221 1,187 13 2,421 Total Caseload 7,801 11,774 120 19,695 911 916 0 1,827 6,890 10,858 120 17,868 FY 2004-05 Pending 7/1/04 DISPOSITIONS: Total Dispositions Pending 6/30/05 6 Statistical Overview Civil Bench Caseload Activity Civil case filings increased 4 percent over last year. Case dispositions remained the same and cases pending at the end of year decreased 6 percent. Four year trends indicate 1 percent decrease in case filings, a 2 percent decrease in dispositions, and a 4 percent decrease in pending cases. Adult Probation Quality Assurance Program ►The use of several validated assessment instruments that measThree quality assurance audits ure criminogenic factors, risk/needs, were performed this year, one at and severity of alcohol and other each of the three satellite offices. A drug problems. team consisting of the chief probation officer, senior management ►The teaching and training of staff and line officers evaluated the probation staff members to use cogwork of three units by reviewing a nitive-behavioral and motivational random sample of 10 cases from interviewing techniques with probaeach officer. A data collection in- tioners. ADULT PROBATION strument was applied to each file to David F. Sanders determine if standards of supervi►Ensuring that contract treatChief Probation Officer sion were being met. These reviews ment providers utilize EBP, cognihelped to assure officers’ work was tive based and motivational enMISSION STATEMENT being done in accordance with de- hancement therapies, while addressing criminogenic factors. Our Mission is to serve the partmental standards. court, to actively promote commu►Incorporating outcome-based Evidence-Based Practices nity safety, to facilitate positive strategies throughout community behavioral change in probationers supervision, supervision Evidence based practices (EBP) based and to respect victim rights. In performing our mission, the stems from decades of social sci- planning and implementation, and department recognizes that em- ence research, and offers us tar- general caseload management. ployees are our most valuable re- geted intervention strategies that ►Ensuring supervision levels source and we hold these essen- demonstrate consistent scientific tial core values: integrity, respect, evidence related to improved out- are consistent with the probaaccountability, fairness, compas- comes with probationers. This body tioner’s level of risk/needs. of research clearly defines what sion, creativity and excellence. ►Providing supervision that The Adult Probation Depart- works and what does not, enabling ment in Pima County strives to us to work smarter and more effec- focuses on criminogenic factors that From assessment to lowers recidivism rates during the achieve the highest standards in tively. the administration of criminal caseload supervision, and treat- term of probation and beyond. justice and community correc- ment intervention, EBP is now the ►Promoting victim restoration driving force of how we do business tions. in probation. Thus far, the depart- though increased contact, collection ment has embraced EBP with the of restitution, and overall accountAdult Probation Enterprise ability. following initiatives: Tracking System The Adult Probation Enterprise Tracking System (APETS) rolled-out on May 23, 2005, in Pima County and will be fully implemented statewide by the end of fiscal year 2007. This automated system enables adult probation departments to effectively share offender information resulting in the improved tracking and oversight of Arizona’s probationers. Eventually, APETS will benefit other public safety professionals in the state and nation as well, with integration “feeds” into the Arizona and National Crime Information Centers. More information is available on the APETS website located at:http://supreme22/ apets/. ►Improving community restoration through inter-agency networking, and holding probationers more accountable. Probation Population “The experience of 9/11 (and subsequent investigations) demonstrated painfully that information needs to be available to the right people, at the right time, both in the state and federal sectors.” ---Chief Justice Jones, 2002 7 In fiscal year 2004, the total population of offenders under the supervision of the Adult Probation Department increased slightly from 7,419 in fiscal year 2003 to 7,576. This number includes Tucson City Court and Pima County Consolidated Justice Court cases, juvenile remands to Pima County Superior Court, incarcerated probationers, those awaiting deportation, unsupervised probationers and individuals on absconder status. Also included in the total are those proba- Standard Probation Population Officers provided supervision to 6,615 standard probationers this year, an 8.92 percent increase over the previous year. Of these, 278 probationers had their probation revoked and were sentenced to either prison or jail. A total of 1,106 probationers successfully completed probation. Officers collected $3,071,560 in probation fines, fees, restitution and other monies. Additionally, 101,030 hours of community service were performed. Intensive Probation Population (IPS) This fiscal year, IPS officers supervised 1,502 active probationers (an average of 550 per month). A total of 950 probationers were added during the year and 305 suc- cessfully completed probation. A total of 78 percent of these probationers were employed, generating $413,225 in tax revenue. Also, a total of $645,506 in court-ordered assessments was collected and probationers completed 125,684 hours of community service work. Specialized Caseloads The Jail Project Team continued to save taxpayers’ money with the preparation of accelerated reports, which reduced the average number of days a defendant spends in jail. This year, the average number decreased from 30.75 days to 25.17. At a cost of $55 a day per defendant, a savings of $232,980 in incarceration expenses was realized. 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% es ti c D om Se x V io le nc O e ff A en gg ra de va rs te d Se D D ri U ru ou I g sl R C y es o M id ur en en t Sp ta ti al ec lly ia T Il re lL l at ea m rn en in t g N ee ds New this year was the court’s creation of a Mental Health or “Specialty” Court to address defendants with specialized issues. A team of three officers prepared specialized pre-sentence reports The Assessment Center for this court, which required inof psychological In response to Chief Justice terpretation Charles E. Jones’ strategic agenda, evaluations and interaction with a new risk needs assessment in- the mental health community. strument was implemented this Drug Court: Deferredyear. Used in conjunction with APETS, the offender screening tool Judgment & Post-Conviction (OST) provided a more in-depth The goal of the Drug Court direction for officers in the development of case plans and offered con- Program is to assist participants siderable direction with respect to in achieving total abstinence from the delivery of case management drugs and alcohol. It is a volunservices. In addition, the assess- tary program for nonviolent ofment center assisted officers in fenders and focuses on substance identifying offenders who posed the abuse rehabilitation and commugreatest risk for re-offending, nity involvement. It has a comthereby increasing the protection of prehensive treatment program of children, families and the commu- counseling, recovery, support groups, urinalysis and the use of nity. Assessment center officers pre- victim impact panels. The most pared 4,082 pre-sentence reports recent recidivism study indicated this year, an increase of 11.4 per- Drug Court graduates had a 24 cent over last year. Despite the in- percent arrest/conviction rate vercreased workload and the addition sus 66 percent for defendants who of only one probation officer posi- completed standard probation tion, 98.5 percent of reports were supervision. This year, the Deferred Judgdistributed early or on time. In addition, 4,600 victims were con- ment Drug Court program, which tacted regarding restitution, of- provides for early dispositions fense impact, and sentencing rec- and possible dismissal or reducommendations and more than 72 tion of the original charges, admitted 176 offenders and had 268 percent provided input. 8 Adult Probation tioners supervised by Pima County, but legally the responsibility of other jurisdictions. A total of 2,711 individuals were added to the total probation population during the year, with 2,900 terminating probation (fullterm discharge, early discharge, revoked, modified, death or other termination). Of these, 1,916 (66 percent) probationers successfully completed their probation terms. At the end of the fiscal year, 857 probationers were on absconder status compared to 843 the previous year. Warrant officers apprehended 633 absconders who owed $2,308,337 in court-ordered assessments. In addition, probation was revoked on 621 (21 percent) probationers, resulting in their incarceration to the Pima County Adult Detention Center and/or to the Arizona Department of Corrections. Standard and Intensive probationers completed 226,714 hours of community service, amounting to $1,167,577 in free labor for Pima County taxpayers. In addition, probationers paid $3,717,066 in restitution, reimbursement, fines, surcharges and fees. Adult Probation participants. Of these, 56 graduated (an 1.8 percent increase over last year), 55 terminated and 21 voluntarily withdrew from the program. The Post-Conviction Drug Court program, which allows for felony charges to be designated misdemeanors after successful completion, admitted 219 offenders and had 233 participants. Of these, 15 graduated, 61 terminated, and 14 voluntarily withdrew from the program. Statewide, there were 2,942 successful graduates as of December 31, 2004, with approximately 1,405 individuals currently participating in Drug Court programs across the state. Officer Safety Program Officers continued to receive state-of-the-art training in officer safety techniques from the Arizona Supreme Court. The department followed the guidelines and standards established by the Committee on Judicial Education and Training and exceeded the mandated 16 hours of training per employee each calendar year by earning 15,754 of approved training hours. Of these, 3,447 addressed officer safety issues and 1,788 related directly to firearms. An officer safety trainer provided safety instruction on defensive tactics and firearms onsite as well as at the state level. Ninety-nine officers were certified to carry a firearm by the end of the fiscal year. Drug Treatment & Education Fund (DTEF) Established by Arizona voters in 1996, Arizona Revised Statute §13-901.02 changed sentencing options for those convicted of personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia. It required the court to suspend the imposition or execution of a prison sentence and to place the person on probation with the condition they partici- niles adjudicated to adult probation, defendants’ families and other at-risk members of the community. LEARN’s purpose is to provide offenders with a variety of academic and social skills that facilitate their re-entry into the community as contributing citizens. This year, services were provided at three probation satellite offices to 613 students. Of these, 79 earned their General Education Diplomas, five were inducted into the National Adult Education Defensive tactics training at the Honor Society, and nine were “mat room” in the Southside Ofawarded scholarships to Pima fice. Community College. In addition, 14 pate in an appropriate drug treat- individuals completed parenting ment or drug education program (it classes and the Cognitive Skills Program graduated 124 probationexcluded violent drug offenders). The department screens all pro- ers. bationers and treatment recomRecognition of Excellence mendations are made for the appropriate type and level of inter●Senior Probation Officer vention. Through 28 treatment contracts, agencies provided 1,178 pro- Ruben Rosales and Senior Surveilbationers with subsidized “best lance Officer Bill Bartlett arrested practice” services, which included 15 absconders during their particistandard and intensive outpatient pation in “Operation Falcon”, a treatment, lapse/relapse preven- one-week coordinated nationwide tion, detoxification, motivational effort by U.S. Marshals to roundup enhancement, cognitive skills, and fugitives. ●Senior Probation Officer others. This year, DTEF funded two Ruben Rosales received one of five employee cognitive skills trainings awards for 2004’s Officer of the that were attended by 39 officers. Year for 88 Crime. ●The Community Service ProThe trainings acquainted officers with the skills and techniques gram received an Honorable Menlearned by probationers in their tion from the office of Governor cognitive trainings. This enabled Janet Napolitano at the Arizona officers to reinforce to their proba- Clean and Beautiful Governor’s tioners the lessons and skills they Pride in Arizona Awards Conferacquired in training to resolve ence. The Program also received situations and communicate in the Award of Appreciation from the positive ways. In addition, five mo- Pima County Board of Supervisors tivational interviewing sessions and an award from the Pima Counwere presented to 64 officers this cil on Aging - Appreciation for Eldyear. Due to their importance in erly Yard Work Projects. ●Cognitive Skills and Motivaprobationer success, these sessions will become mandatory for all offi- tional Interviewing Coordinator Steve Emslie was honored in May cers next fiscal year. of 2005 with the “Teacher of the Year” award from the Adult DiviEducation Services sion of the Arizona Supreme Court, The department’s Literacy, Administrative Office of the Education and Resource Network Courts, Project LEARN. This (LEARN) provided a broad spec- marked the first time in the history trum of in-house education pro- of the award that a teacher who grams for adult probationers, juve- works outside the mainstream 9 Honored By “The Troops” Through the department’s Staff Melissa Lopez receives her award Relations Committee, employees from Division Director Ruben Casnominated co-workers for supervi- tro. sor, officer, and employee of the year awards. After applying a criteria instrument to the nominations, the committee determined the following recipients: MELISSA LOPEZ: Employee of the Year–Melissa, a litigation support specialist II, was honored for her dedicated work in data entry for intensive probation supervision. She started with the department in February 1999 as a temporary worker and earned a permanent position in December of the same year. Melissa is described by her co-workers as “considerate, hardworking and dedicated,” and she has great communication skills with fellow employees and also with defendants. RUBEN ROSALES: Officer of the Year–Ruben began his officer career in 1993, supervising the Ajo/Sells standard caseload. Three years later, as a senior probation officer, he supervised IPS probationers and continued to for the next two years. Ruben then transferred to the Absconder Unit, where Supervisor Phil Shelley said the transfer was “a classic example of having the right person for the right job.” Ruben has received commendations from both the Tucson Police Department and the Pima County Sheriff’s Department and was deputized as a U.S. Marshall in 2003. He received one of five awards in September 2004 for 88 CRIME’s Officer of the Year. Officer of the Year Ruben Rosales receives his award from Division Director Ruben Castro as Chief Probation Officer David Sanders looks on. then wrote pre-sentence reports and later returned to the field to supervise standard as well as intensive supervision probationers. She received her Master’s Degree from the University of Arizona in 1983 and in 1989, became a supervisor in the Investigations Division. Upon her return to the field in 1992, Mary Jo formalized specialized caseload criteria while she served as the supervisor for the unit of officers supervising sex offenders, the seriously mentally ill, and offenders with special learning needs. As these caseloads grew, Mary Jo was assigned to limit her oversight to supervising officers who handled sex offender cases and she served on a committee that developed statewide sex offender notification guidelines. Leaving that assignment in 1997, Mary Jo has supervised standard and intensive probation and surveillance officers and currently works as an IPS unit supervisor at the east office. Mary Jo exhibits the attention to detail, thoroughness and patience that make her a wonderful teacher for new officers. She has clear expectations of her officers and is able to set them up for competency and success. Mary Jo has “enjoyed it all,” and feels she has contributed something positive to Pima County Adult Probation and to her community. Personnel and Budget Mary Jo Gasparro receives her award from Division Director Ruben Castro. MARY JO GASPARRO: Supervisor of the Year–A 26-year veteran, Mary Jo began her association with adult probation in January 1978, first as a volunteer and then as an intern. She was hired in 1978 as a probation officer’s aide and was promoted to probation officer in 1980. Mary Jo initially worked as a field officer, 10 Although the department increased its employee roster by 14 positions this fiscal year (268 from 254), it operated with a monthly average of 43 personnel vacancies. Funding increased 12.4 percent this year, from $15,006,367 in fiscal year 2004 to $16,863,207. During this time period, the number of probationers requiring supervision increased by 157 for a total of 7,576. The funding appropriation for FY 2006 was slightly higher at $16,969,054. Adult Probation adult education curriculum was recognized for outstanding achievement. ●LEARN program exceeded last year’s goals and was awarded funds to purchase enhanced curriculum software, along with the Supreme Court’s funding for new computers, monitors, printers and one file server. Adult Probation Daily Supervision Costs Guiding Principles ●To seek victims’ input and facilitate their involvement in the restoration process. ●To develop collaborative relationships and partnerships with the community and its agencies. ●To provide the court with the highest quality information available to assist judicial decisions. ●To assess probationer risks and needs and implement outcomebased supervision plans designed to develop competency and bring about lasting behavioral change. ●To monitor and assist probationer compliance with court orders and laws, reward progress $54.86 $56.66 $60.00 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $14.00 $5.00 $10.00 $0.00 Standard Probation Intensive Probation Pima County Jail Arizona State Prison and respond appropriately to violations. ●To research, develop and implement effective, efficient probation strategies and measure performance outcomes. Members of the “30-Year Club” pose for a picture with the presiding judge and chief probation officer. (Left to right) Chief Probation Officer David Sanders, Unit Supervisor Donnie Johnson, Unit Supervisor Linda Montoya, Presiding Judge John Leonardo, Senior Probation Officer Ray Valenzuela, and Division Director Ruben Castro. 11 Court Administrator Kent Batty presents Probation Supervisor Donnie Johnson with his pin for 30 years of service to Pima County Adult Probation. Conciliation Court Comm. Stephen Rubin was named president-elect of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges during the group’s board of Hon. Stephen trustees meeting Rubin held Jan. 20-21 in San Diego. Comm. Rubin serves as a lead judge in the NCJFCJ’s Child Victims Act Model Courts Project. Pima County Juvenile Court is one of 25 Model Courts nationwide that is implementing strategies designed to improve the courts’ handling of child abuse and neglect cases. Diversity Forum. In October, FCCC celebrated the 10-year anniversary of the Diversity Forum. The forum focuses on developing an appreciation for the expressions of diversity in its many forms. A major feature of the forum is the regularly scheduled educational programs that are open to the public with a significant contingent attending from the various court departments and divisions for continuing education credit. Custody/Parenting Time Mediation. In a confidential, neutral setting, a specially trained family mediator is available to help parents develop a mutually agreeable custody/parenting time plan that would best meet their children's Changes in Leadership needs. In FY 2005, there were 1,289 mediation cases opened, of Conciliation Court. At the which 998 were first time referrals end of 2004, Fred Mitchell, director and 291 were subsequent mediaof the Family Center of the Con- tion. ciliation Court retired. Succeeding Fred as director was long-time Conciliation and Counselstaff member Grace Hawkins. ing Services. The focus of the conCourt Reporters. A 13-year ciliation counseling process is to veteran of the court reporters pool assist the parties in making an at superior court was appointed to informed and thoughtful decision the position of managing court re- regarding their marital relationporter. Terri Faust held the post ship. The total number of counselon an interim basis before assum- ing cases conducted in FY 2005 ing her new position. was 82. Facilities Management. In May 2005, Facilities Manager Child Advocacy Services. Mike Stafford retired from the The goal of the Child Advocacy court after holding the position Services is to provide assistance since 1997. Named as the new fa- and education to all parties in the cilities manager was Dennis successful resolution of disputes Gauthier, who had spent 16 years regarding custody, parenting time managing facilities for Pima Com- and other related matters involvmunity College. ing children. For FY 2005, the Court Interpreters. During Child Advocacy Team opened 55 FY 2005, the first and only director first time custody and parenting of the Office of the Court Inter- time evaluations, and 3 subsepreter retired after 30 years of ser- quent/after care evaluations. vice to Pima County and the supeConsultation and Commurior court. Donna Whitman was succeeded by Victoria Vásquez, nity Education. Throughout FY who had previously served as asso- 2005, FCCC provided consultation ciate director of the National Cen- and education services to the court ter for Interpretation at the Uni- system, mental health agencies, social service agencies, educational versity of Arizona. institutions and the community at 12 large. A total of 30 programs were conducted. Special Master Program. The court may appoint a special master when other methods of problem resolution have not enabled the parents to make decisions about their children. By the close of FY 2005, a total of 25 special master case appointments were ordered by the Family Law bench. Of those, three were appointed to the FCCC. Contract Services Monitoring. The FCCC negotiates contract extensions for the mandated Parent Information Program and the Judicial Supervision Program (JSP). FCCC maintains a file of each JSP case, tracking cases from opening to closing, reviewing the appropriateness of services, assisting the provider in gaining access to information from other court files, reviewing critical incidents, reviewing and authorizing provider invoices, assisting the provider in conducting program evaluations, and sitting on the JSP Advisory Committee. JSP provided supervised access and parenting services to 216 families during FY 2005. Referral and Billing Monitoring. It is the responsibility of FCCC to monitor referrals to members of the panel, to monitor invoices from members of the panel for compliance with the cost limit per evaluation set by the order, to maintain a count of referrals and completed evaluations, and to report expenditures for limited evaluations to the presiding Family Law judge on a quarterly basis. In FY 2005, a total of 25 evaluations were ordered, $25,625 in subsidies was paid out of the expedited child support and parenting time fund. Calendar Services AGAVE. Calendar Services staff members devoted many hours during FY 2005 helping programmers design a case management computer system that will eventually replace current calendar pro- FY 2005 Highlights Comm. Stephen Rubin FY 2005 Highlights grams used by the court. The new program will be called AGAVE and will eventually be implemented throughout Arizona Superior Court in every county. Efforts are being made to work with representatives from all the counties in order to develop an efficient and productive case management system that contains standard procedures. The new case management program will change many duties of Calendar Services staff members allowing them to devote more time to working on reports, quality control issues and compliance with court rules. Courtroom observation The first of those programs, called “In the Jury Room,” featured the trial, State of Arizona vs. Wendy Sue Anderson, conducted by Judge Kenneth Lee, aired on Aug. 25. Ms. Anderson was accused of killing a Marana teenager in a DUI traffic accident. The second program, featuring the trial, State of Arizona vs. Joshua Sanora, conducted by Judge Michael Alfred, was scheduled to air on Sept. 14, but was postponed indefinitely by ABC News. Mr. Sanora was accused of attempted second-degree murder in an incident in the western Pima County community of Ajo. Courts Are Us The Courts Are Us summer youth employment program began its 14th successful seven-week run in June 2005. Tucson Youth Development provided the Courts Are Us Program with 31 students assigned to the following entities: Tucson City Students observe Judge Michael Court (16), Pima County ConsoliCruikshank’s courtroom. dated Justice Courts (9), Pima County Superior Court (5), and the There are literally hundreds Pima County Legal Defender’s Ofof students who visit our court- fice (1). rooms either in organized groups or individually. For the larger, organized student groups the normal routine is to have them observe morning calendar in a criminal division. This enables them to view a variety of matters ranging from routine status conferences to changes of plea, to sentencing hearings to hearings seeking revocation of a defendant’s probation. At 10:30, Judge-Pro Tempore Frank Dawley classes observe the resumption of sets the scene for the mock trial a criminal trial that is in pro- performed by the Courts Are Us gress. Court Interpreters In the Jury Room Services. During FY 2005, the Just about a year after ABC Office of the Court Interpreter proNews filmed two criminal trials vided interpreting services in 5,418 at Pima County Superior Court, hearings, an increase of 6 percent the airing of those programs was from the previous year. In addition, eagerly anticipated by members they translated 930 pages of docuof the court’s staff. ments, participated in 112 out-of- 13 court events, offered services in 19 lesser-used languages and assisted 27 hearing impaired jurors. This represents a 20 percent increase from last year in most of these categories. Staff Honors. Martha Meza was honored for 25 years of service in November. In April, at the Judicial Staff Conference, Lourdes Machado received an award for trainer excellence from the Administrative Office of the Court’s Southern Region—a statewide honor. Furthermore, in June she taught Prescott County employees. Both Pedro Davis and Lourdes Machado took courses in advanced interpreting at the University of Arizona. In June, Victoria Vásquez, participated in the annual Arizona Public Defenders Conference in Tempe, Ariz. and offered training along with 11 other statewide interpreter supervisors on how to better utilize interpreter services. Probate Project. The interpreters translated probate documents and forms allowing Spanish speakers access to the probate process. Jury Commissioner Jurors Summoned. During FY 2004-2005, the Jury Commissioner’s Office summoned 82,450 prospective jurors to serve in the superior court, the Pima County Consolidated Justice Courts, and on grand juries. Of the 82,450 jurors summoned, 11,168 failed to appear as instructed. Pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the city of Tucson, 29,940 prospective jurors were summoned for service in the Tucson City Court. Of those, 2,171 failed to appear. Jurors Unqualified, Excused or Disqualified. Approximately 10,250 prospective jurors were found to be unqualified for jury service because they were not United States citizens, not residents of the jurisdiction for which they were summoned, convicted felons with- Mileage Reimbursement. In December 2004, the mileage reimbursement rate for jurors increased from 34.5 cents per mile to 37.5 cents per mile. Jurors who report for service are reimbursed for their roundtrip mileage. During the fiscal year, jurors who reported for service in superior and justice courts or for grand jury service were paid $352,697.18 for mileage costs. Tucson City Court jurors received $23,597.40 in mileage. Per Diem Juror Fees. Impaneled superior court, justice court and grand jurors also received $254,148.38 in per diem jury fees. Tucson City Court jurors were paid $11,916 in fees. All impaneled jurors receive the $12 per day fee. Effective July 1, 2004, jurors who served on trials lasting more than 10 days became eligible to receive additional compensation for their jury service. A.R.S. § 21-222 established the Arizona lengthy trial fund, which is funded by civil filing fees. Jurors who serve on lengthy trials may submit requests to receive money from the fund to reimburse them for lost earnings. During FY 2004-05, the superior court had eight trials that lasted more than 10 days. Forty-three jurors applied for and were approved to receive compensation from the lengthy trial fund. These jurors received a total of $32,214.22 in compensation from the fund for their jury service. Changes to Juror Qualifications. Late in the fiscal year, Gov. Janet Napolitano signed into law a revised A.R.S. § 21-202, which defined persons entitled to be excused from jury service. The revised law detailed precisely what information needed to be submitted by prospective jurors seeking medical excuses. The law also allowed prospective jurors aged 75 and older to request to be excused from jury service due to their age. Judges and jury commissioners were given authority to excuse prospective jurors based upon a showing of undue or extreme hardship, even if their specific hardship was not listed elsewhere in the statute. Chief Justice Charles Jones congratulates a juror (well past 75years-old) who chose to report for jury service. Law Library The mission of the Pima County Law Library is to provide access to legal information, a basic component of access to justice, to all citizens of the county in ways that are reliable, efficient, respectful, innovative and economical. Gate count for the law library in FY 2004-05 was 15,582 persons, an increase of 38 percent from the previous year. computers are available in the law library for access to the databases. The law library online catalog continues to be instantly available at http://www. sc.pima.gov/lawlib/. Hours of Operation. The law library is open Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding holidays. Self-Service Center A long-time goal of Pima County Superior Court was realized with the opening of the SelfService Center for in pro per litigants in the Pima County Law Library on the second floor of the courthouse. The Self-Service Center is designed to provide access to document resources and to provide the opportunity for people to obtain appropriate forms conveniently and at affordable cost. While this service does not provide the benefits of legal advice, it will ensure that litigants can access the courts using correct documents regardless of their means. Pro pers who visit the SelfService Center identify the forms they need and request printed copies from the library staff. There are 21 different packets containing forms. The cost of the forms is nominal. Eventually the forms may be accessible through the court’s Internet website. Resources. Westlaw and Loislaw are both available in the law library. Both databases include all states and all federal coverage including cases and statutes and some topical coverage. Two The Self-Service Center, located in the Pima County Law Library has been a huge success. 14 FY 2005 Highlights out their civil rights, under 18 years of age, or they had been adjudicated mentally incompetent. Approximately 13,100 jurors were excused from jury service for undue hardship. Approximately 16,000 summonses were returned in the mail as undeliverable. Of the prospective jurors summoned for superior and justice courts and for grand jury service that were not disqualified or excused, 29,270 reported to the courthouse for service. 4,432 reported for service in Tucson City Court. FY 2005 Highlights Mental Health Court Beginning July 2004, Pima County Superior Court launched Mental Health Court. The purpose of the court is to efficiently and effectively process and adjudicate criminal cases involving defendants who have serious mental illness; improve linkages between the court, community supervision agencies and the behavioral health treatment system; and promote the delivery of appropriate behavioral health services for defendants pending disposition of their charges and those on probation. The SMI program description defines its purpose as “To provide the court with an economical alternative to incarceration through effective, intermediate supervision of SMI offenders utilizing treatment planning, community resources, medication monitoring, educational programs and surveillance.” A senior probation officer and a surveillance officer supervise SMI caseloads. Both officers have experience and training working with SMI individuals. The impact of Seriously Mentally Ill (SMI) cases on the judiciary and community supervision agencies is significant. Effective intervention, which includes supervision and treatment, is considered essential to reduce recidivism rates. If the inmate charged with a felony (other than murder, sexual assault or child molestation) has been identified as SMI then he/she will likely be transferred to the Mental Health Court before arraignment. A Rule 11 evaluation to determine competency will be administered, if deemed necessary, between arraignment and the case management conference. If the defendant is found to be not competent and not restorable to competency, the court may authorize the county attorney to file civil commitment proceedings pursuant to Title 36. If warranted, the court may refer the case to the public fiduciary for Title 14 guardianship. The criminal case is subsequently dismissed. If the defendant is found competent to stand trial, proceedings resume. Sentencing options for the Mental Health Court are the same as any criminal case. The judge may impose prison, intensive probation supervision, standard probation, jail as a condition of probation or placement on the specialized SMI caseload. Judge Nanette Warner presides over a Mental Health Court graduation ceremony. Pretrial Services hearing, and 3,341 of these cases were reassigned to staff for further review. New reports were prepared and presented to the court that addressed modifying conditions of release in 1,829 cases. This was a 12 percent increase in reports prepared over last year and 30 percent increase over the last two years. The number of defendants released into the custody of Pretrial Services increased at about the same rate as the increase in the overall felony population. Staff supervised 2,739 defendants (a 6 percent increase) and closed out 2,156 of those cases. A total of 78 percent of these closures were considered successful (no failures to appear, no felony re-arrest, and no revocations for failure to abide by court ordered conditions of release). Warrants. Staff efforts continue to show success in reducing the number of warrants issued out of the arraignment court. In a sixmonth period during this fiscal year, warrants issued out of the arraignment court were reduced by 50 percent. In February, a new project was initiated with Pima County Consolidated Justice Court to conduct outreach on defendants who failed to appear in court on DUI charges. Since the inception of this project, 224 warrants have been resolved without arrest. Pretrial Services (PTS) responsibilities focus on providing comprehensive background information and release options to the court to assist in the release decisions for pretrial defendants. This past fiscal year there was a 6 percent increase in cases presented for in-custody felony initial appearances. The court set Emergency coordinators conditions of release on just under 9,200 felony cases, and PreThe volunteer emergency coortrial Services provided information and recommendations on dinators for the Pima County Superior Court building have com99.4 percent of these cases. pleted training designed to make Miseemeanor Arrests. them a Community Emergency The There were roughly 8,900 county Response Team (CERT). misdemeanor arrests and 4,000 CERT training was designed to were eligible for pre-release con- provide emergency coordinators to sideration, and of this group, be first responders to an emer2,189 were identified as suitable gency in the courthouse. The coorfor release and released by Pre- dinators have been trained to assess the situation and to begin restrial Services staff. cue efforts or treatment efforts Felony Cases. There were prior to the arrival of the profes5,439 felony cases where a bond sionals. was set at the initial appearance 15 Acknowledgements This report represents the achievements of the employees working for Arizona Superior Court in Pima County. We extend special thanks to the following individuals for contributing to this annual report: Co-Editor ~ Eric Silverberg Co-Editor ~ Susan Foster Co-Editor ~ David Ricker K. Kent Batty Court Administrator