Fresno Judge Draws a Public Censure : High Court Scolds One-Time Appeals Bench Nominee for Delays

The California Supreme Court on Friday publicly censured a Fresno County Superior Court judge who had been nominated to the appellate bench before it was reported that the judge had failed to decide dozens of cases within required deadlines.

The justices, in a two-page order, reprimanded Judge Frank J. Creede Jr. for “repeatedly and unjustifiably” delaying decisions over a five-year period ending in April, 1985.

The court said that while Creede appeared to be a “diligent, hard-working and highly respected judge,” there was clear evidence that he had violated provisions of the state Code of Judicial Conduct requiring jurists to “dispose promptly of the business of the court.”

Filing of Affidavits

During the five years, the court said, Creede had filed salary affidavits erroneously indicating that he had met the deadlines. State law requires that judges decide cases within 90 days after they have been submitted for decision or forfeit their pay.

The justices said, however, that the judge did not “knowingly falsify” the affidavits and that he did not “intentionally or maliciously disregard” his responsibilities.

The court said there was “no credible evidence” that the delays had adversely affected the cases. And it acknowledged that the delays were “partially attributable to an excessive workload and inadequate support staff.”

Nonetheless, Creede could have taken steps to dispose of the cases on time, the court said, and “since the protracted delays served to damage the esteem of the public for the judiciary, his conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

Gov. George Deukmejian had named Creede to the state Court of Appeal in Fresno last year, unaware of the delays that had taken place in his court. At a confirmation hearing before the state Judicial Appointments Commission, the attorney general’s office reported evidence of the delays--and the commission set aside the nomination.

Censure Recommended

Later, the state Judicial Performance Commission, the agency that investigates complaints of misconduct by judges, recommended censure after finding that Creede had failed to decide 51 cases within the 90-day deadline. It took the judge 1,643 days to decide one case, the commission said.

Meanwhile, Creede withdrew his name from consideration as an appellate justice, and he did not contest the Judicial Performance Commission’s recommendation to the high court for his public censure.