Final Recommendation

The Honorable

Mark T. Sanchez

District Court Judge
5th Judicial District --
Chaves, Eddy, and Lea Counties

Year: 2014

Recommendation: Retain

Election Results: Retained

Evaluation: Judge Mark Sanchez received generally positive ratings overall. For example, attorneys rated him quite positively for promptly scheduling hearings, attentiveness to proceedings, and for displaying familiarity with court cases through prior preparation. Although most of his scores among attorneys were positive, he received somewhat lower scores on conducting himself in a manner free from arrogance, treating all participants equally, and displaying fairness and impartiality toward each side. The court staff rated him positively in all areas and the resource staff (e.g., law enforcement, probation and parole officers, interpreters, etc.) rated him positively for being attentive to proceedings, displaying familiarity with court cases through prior preparation, and for being courteous to all participants. However, the resource staff rated him slightly lower when it comes to behaving in a manner that encourages respect for the courts and for making decisions without regard to the popularity of the decision.

Experience & Education: Judge Sanchez was elected to the District Court in 2010. He worked in private practice since 1987 concentrating on domestic matters and appellate practice. Judge Sanchez received his undergraduate degree from Harvard and his law degree from Drake University in 1986.

PERCENTAGE THAT AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT THE JUDGE EXHIBITS POSITIVE QUALITIES IN EACH CATEGORY *

Attorneys (n=40, 28% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 79% 13% 8%
Fair and Impartial 67% 15% 18%
Knowledgeable of Law 61% 31% 8%
Communication is Clear 71% 25% 4%
Appropriate Demeanor 67% 15% 18%
Properly Controls Proceedings 82% 8% 11%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A
Court Staff (n=52, 79% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 86% 14% 0%
Fair and Impartial N/A N/A N/A
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear N/A N/A N/A
Appropriate Demeanor N/A N/A N/A
Properly Controls Proceedings N/A N/A N/A
Respects Court Employees 80% 7% 13%
Jurors (n=42, 27% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 98% 2% 0%
Fair and Impartial 100% 0% 0%
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear 100% 0% 0%
Appropriate Demeanor 99% 1% 0%
Properly Controls Proceedings 98% 2% 0%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 71% 7% 21%
Fair and Impartial 77% 6% 17%
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear 64% 25% 11%
Appropriate Demeanor 86% 11% 4%
Properly Controls Proceedings 78% 15% 7%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A

* On the tables above, the "Agree" columns are comprised of the strongly agree and agree responses. Similarly, the "Disagree" columns are comprised of the strongly disagree and disagree responses. The combined percentage of "Agree", "Disagree", and "Partly Agree/Partly Disagree" for each category may not equal 100% due to rounding error. "N/A" indicates that the category is "not applicable" because some populations were not asked certain questions.

 

PERCENTAGE THAT RECOMMEND THE JUDGE BE RETAINED OR NOT BE RETAINED IN OFFICE. ‡

‡ On the charts above, the "Retain" columns are comprised of the strongly recommend retain and somewhat recommend retain responses. Similarly, the "Do Not Retain" columns are comprised of the strongly recommend not retain and somewhat recommend not retain responses.

 

Back to top