Full Opinion

FILED Nov 05 2026, 12:15 pm IN THE CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court Supreme Court Case No. 26S-JD-312 In the Matter of the Honorable Jose D. Salinas, Judge of the Marion Superior Court 23, Respondent. Decided: November 5, 2026 Judicial Discipline Action Per Curiam Opinion Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa, Goff, and Molter concur. Justice Slaughter concurs in part and dissents in part. Per curiam. We find that Respondent, the Honorable Jose D. Salinas, Judge of the Marion Superior Court 23, committed judicial misconduct by failing to (1) timely and properly take judicial action in criminal and expungement cases, and (2) adequately supervise his staff. This matter is before us on the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications’ (“Commission”) “Notice of the Institution of Formal Proceedings and Statement of Charges” (“Complaint”) against Respondent. The parties jointly tendered a “Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline” stipulating to the below facts and agreed sanction—a 45-day, unpaid suspension. Procedural Background and Facts Respondent took office as Judge for the Marion Superior Court on January 1, 2007. At all relevant times, he presided over a misdemeanor and Level 6 felony criminal docket. In December 2021, Respondent self-reported to the Commission that a defendant on his docket had been improperly held in the Marion County Jail for 166 days because Respondent’s staff failed to enter a “release code” in the case management system. In March 2022, Respondent and other judicial officers began developing new uniform procedures and processes for Marion County criminal courts to add safeguards better ensuring the timely release of defendants in custody. And in July 2022, the Criminal Division of the Marion Superior Courts began implementing those policies and procedures, which addressed risks of administrative errors that could cause adverse consequences to litigants. Continued staff errors On April 29, 2025, Respondent set a $300 cash bond for a defendant at an initial hearing. The court’s minute sheet did not clearly indicate that it set bond. And court staff did not enter the necessary code to allow the defendant to post bond. On May 9, another judicial officer noticed the error and emailed Respondent’s staff, who entered the correct bond Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 26S-JD-312 | November 5, 2026 Page 2 of 9 amount on May 13. Two days later, the judicial officer who noticed the error ordered the defendant released. Respondent self-reported this administrative error. On May 19, 2025, Respondent conducted a bail review hearing and set conditions for the defendant’s release. But the court’s minute sheet and the MyCase entry were inconsistent on the release conditions. And court staff failed to enter the correct release code that would have allowed the defendant’s release from custody. The defendant was held in custody until his next hearing date on June 9, 2025, at which time he was released. Respondent self-reported this error as well. Failure to set hearings or future court dates In December 2025, the Commission identified thirty of Respondent’s cases that were missing CCS entries, orders, and future court dates. In these cases, Respondent failed to set court dates, failed to indicate what transpired at certain hearings, and/or failed to indicate whether future hearing dates were needed. Upon review, Respondent discovered ten more cases that had missing entries, orders, or future court dates. Some of the missing entries dated as far back as 2015; Respondent failed to take action in some of these cases until January 2026. In one case, a defendant charged with burglary had been participating in Drug Treatment Court. Respondent conducted a hearing on December 2, 2021. According to Respondent, the defendant was terminated from Drug Treatment Court at that time, and a warrant should have been issued for the defendant’s arrest. But no entries were placed on the court record reflecting this determination. A warrant was not issued until December 9, 2025, four years later. In another case, Respondent canceled a defendant’s April 10, 2023, initial hearing and did not set a new date. The defendant—charged with synthetic identity deception—did not receive an initial hearing until more than two years later, in December 2025. The State dismissed the case because the defendant was not timely tried per Criminal Rule 4(C). Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 26S-JD-312 | November 5, 2026 Page 3 of 9 In still another case, Respondent canceled a defendant’s March 5, 2020, bench trial for unlawful possession of a syringe. The court did not set a new trial date or take any further action on the case for nearly six years. The State dismissed that case as well. As a result of the missing entries and orders, five cases were dismissed under Crim. R. 4(C) because defendants were not tried in a timely manner. The State dismissed approximately fifteen additional cases after declining to prosecute or for other unstated reasons. Failure to timely take action in expungement cases While the Commission was investigating Respondent’s self-reports, it received another report regarding administrative errors in Respondent’s court. Specifically, Respondent failed to enter automatic expungements as required by law. Indiana Code § 35-38-9-1(b) provides for the automatic expungement of charges if (1) a court dismisses all criminal charges or juvenile delinquency allegations filed and pending against a person (I.C. § 35-38-9- 1(b)(1)); or (2) a defendant is acquitted of all charges or the defendant’s conviction is vacated (I.C. § 35-38-9-1(b)(3)(A)). Typically, an expungement order in these circumstances “may not go into effect earlier than sixty (60) days from the date of the dismissal, acquittal, or no true finding.” And a delay of up to one year is permitted only if, “upon motion by the prosecuting attorney, … the court finds that specific facts exist in the particular case which justify a delay[.]” On October 22, 2025, the Marion County Public Defender Agency gave Respondent a list of cases in his court that had missing entries or other errors. The list included thirteen cases that should have been automatically expunged upon dismissal. Delays ranged from 81 days to 795 days. Thereafter, Respondent asked Marion County Court Administration for a list of all pending expungements in Superior Court. The list included 427 pending cases. Respondent directed his court staff to review the cases to ensure properly processed expungements. But Respondent did not follow up with his staff to verify that expungements had been properly updated and processed. Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 26S-JD-312 | November 5, 2026 Page 4 of 9 On December 31, 2025, the Commission amended its notice of investigation to include Respondent’s failure to ensure that automatic expungements were properly processed. At that time, Respondent learned that the thirteen cases flagged by the Marion County Public Defender Agency in October had still not been expunged. The failure to timely expunge cases led to adverse consequences for defendants. In May 2019, defendant C.G. petitioned to expunge two of his criminal cases. Four months later, Respondent granted that petition. But court staff updated only one of the criminal cases as expunged. C.G. was then arrested in April 2026 for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The arresting officer identified the mistakenly non- expunged criminal case as the predicate offense to charge C.G. as a serious violent felon. C.G. remained at the Adult Detention Center from April 18 until April 20, when staff correctly updated C.G.’s record to reflect both prior criminal cases as expunged. Failure to conduct competency hearings Respondent also failed to hold competency hearings or issue related orders. Indiana Code § 35-36-3-1(a) provides, “If at any time before the final submission of any criminal case to the court or the jury trying the case, the court has reasonable grounds for believing that the defendant lacks the ability to understand the proceedings and assist in the preparation of a defense, the court shall immediately fix a time for a hearing to determine whether the defendant has that ability.” In October 2024, the State charged a defendant with sexual battery and confinement. In September 2025, the State moved for a psychiatric examination to determine the defendant’s competence to stand trial. The next day, Respondent conducted a hearing. The defendant was not allowed into the courtroom that day due to his erratic behavior. At the hearing’s conclusion, Respondent agreed with the State and asked the defendant to speak with a doctor. But Respondent did not issue an order granting the State’s motion or ordering a competency evaluation. Court staff did not complete paperwork to have a psychiatrist conduct an evaluation. And despite the defendant appearing in court several times during the seven months that followed, Respondent never conducted a Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 26S-JD-312 | November 5, 2026 Page 5 of 9 hearing to determine the defendant’s competency. On April 6, 2026, a jury found the defendant guilty of sexual battery. In two other criminal cases, Respondent ordered doctors to conduct competency examinations. Respondent’s staff received the first doctor’s evaluation on September 26, 2025, and they provided the report to the parties three days later. Respondent’s staff received the second doctor’s evaluation on October 6, 2025, but failed to provide it to the parties. On October 23, defense counsel inquired with the doctor regarding the status of the report and learned that court staff had received it on October 6. At a hearing on October 27, Respondent found the defendant in the second case incompetent and referred him to the Department of Mental Health. But before the defendant could be placed with the department, he escaped the Marion County Adult Detention Center. He was arrested on October 31 and charged with escape. Failure to enter alternative misdemeanor sentences The Marion County Public Defender Agency’s October 2025 list included five cases in which Respondent should have entered an amended judgment due to an agreed alternative misdemeanor sentence but failed to. Respondent discovered ten additional cases in which the court failed to enter an amended judgment. In two cases, defendants were successfully discharged from probation on April 16, 2021, and November 19, 2021, respectively. But Respondent did not issue amended judgments in both cases until March 13, 2026, nearly five years later. Despite being put on notice of the serious and continuing errors discussed above, Respondent failed to seek additional training for his staff until September 2025, after the Commission issued its Notice of Investigation. And despite being put on notice in October 2025 regarding the expungement errors, Respondent did not seek additional expungement training for his staff until January 2026. Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 26S-JD-312 | November 5, 2026 Page 6 of 9 Discussion Respondent agrees that his conduct violated the following Code of Judicial Conduct provisions: • Rule 1.1, requiring judges to comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct; • Rule 1.2, requiring judges to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; • Rule 2.5(A), requiring judges to perform judicial and administrative duties competently, diligently, and promptly; and • Rule 2.12(A), requiring judges to require court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control to act in a manner consistent with the judge’s obligations under the Code of Judicial Conduct. The parties believe that a 45-day unpaid suspension is warranted for Respondent’s misconduct. We agree. Respondent’s derelection of duties adversely affected litigants and victims. His failure to timely bring some defendants to trial caused the State to dismiss those criminal cases. One defendant spent nearly six months in jail after he was ordered released. And the State charged another defendant as a serious violent felon because Respondent’s staff failed to properly process his expungement. Indeed, the parties agree that Respondent’s misconduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice. Perhaps most concerning, the Commission has worked with Respondent and the Marion County criminal courts since 2022 to right these wrongs, and yet, they persisted. A 45-day suspension—“just shy of what might warrant removal from office”—is wholly warranted here. Matter of Freese, 123 N.E.3d 683, 688 (Ind. 2019). See also Matter of Norrick, 233 N.E.3d 403 (Ind. 2024) (imposing 45-day unpaid suspension for misconduct that included failing to supervise staff). Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 26S-JD-312 | November 5, 2026 Page 7 of 9 We do note, however, several factors that differentiate Respondent’s case from other judicial discipline cases involving patterns of oversight and mismanagement. Respondent self-reported many of the errors in his courtroom, and he made some—albeit, ineffective—efforts to course correct before the Commission initiated its investigaton. Importantly, Respondent has implemented measures to prevent these issues in the future. Respondent now uses a dashboard tool to ensure all active cases have future court dates, a daily list of expungement-eligible cases, and a monthly list of misdemeanor-eligible felonies. Respondent reviews inmate lists daily to ensure their timely release and competency requests weekly. He has also required his staff to undergo additional trainings. Cf. Matter of Brown, 4 N.E.3d 619, 630 (Ind. 2014) (removal from office was warranted in case involving 46 proven counts of misconduct, mismanagement, delays, and dereliction of duties, and where judge-respondent demonstrated “an unwillingness or inability … to remedy deficiencies[.]”). “[J]udicial discipline proceedings are designed not simply to punish wrongdoing. Rather, they also help to ensure that judges are fit for judicial duty, restore public confidence in the administration of justice, and preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary.” In re Kouros, 816 N.E.2d 21, 31 (Ind. 2004) (citations omitted). Due to the implemented changes in Respondent’s court, Respondent—who has no prior discipline and has fully cooperated with the Commission throughout these proceedings—has not proven so unfit as to require a lengthier suspension or removal from office. Conclusion Respondent, Jose D. Salinas, shall be suspended from the office of Judge of the Marion Superior Court without pay for forty-five (45) days commencing at 12:01 a.m. on December 7, 2026. The suspension shall terminate and Respondent shall automatically be reinstated to office at 12:01 a.m. on January 21, 2027. This discipline terminates the disciplinary proceedings relating to the circumstances giving rise to this case. The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 26S-JD-312 | November 5, 2026 Page 8 of 9 Rush, C.J., and Massa, Goff, and Molter, JJ., concur. Slaughter, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, believing the sanction is too lenient. ATTORNEYS FOR INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION Adrienne L. Meiring, Counsel to the Commission Mark R. Conner, Staff Attorney Jill E. Esenwein, Staff Attorney Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT James Bell Indianapolis, Indiana Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 26S-JD-312 | November 5, 2026 Page 9 of 9