← All judges

Ovid R. Beldock

Trial Court · Adams · Adams

Meets Standards(Retain)3 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2000 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Adams · Adams
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 2000 Recommendation: Retain Although the Seventeenth Judicial Performance Commission recommends that Judge Ovid R. Beldock BE RETAINED, a number of Commission members expressed no opinion concerning retention. The reasons for the Commission's lack of unanimity are set forth below. Judge Beldock has served as an Adams County Court Judge since 1980. Prior to his appointment, Judge Beldock was a Deputy District Attorney in the Denver District Attorney's Office, in the practice of law, and as a Magistrate for the Seventeenth Judicial District. Judge Beldock has been assigned to criminal cases and primarily handles traffic violations, DUIs and misdemeanor offenses. One hundred twenty-one surveys were mailed to attorneys and litigants and only 37 were returned. Of the 25 attorneys responding, 48% recommended that Judge Beldock be retained, 36% recommended that he not be retained, and 16% had no opinion. Of the 79 non-attorney surveys mailed, only 12 were returned. Seventy-five percent of the non-attorneys recommended retention, 17% recommended against retention and 8% had no opinion. Due to the small sample size, the Commission placed less importance on the survey results. However, substantial concerns concerning Judge Beldock were raised by attorneys on both sides, particularly with respect to his ability to understand and apply the law consistently.
  • 1996 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Adams · Adams
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1996 Recommendation: Retain The Commission’s unanimous recommendation is that Judge Ovid R. Beldock BE RETAINED. Judge Ovid R. Beldock has been an Adams County Court Judge since May 1, 1982. Previous to being a County Court Judge, Judge Beldock was a Juvenile Commissioner (Magistrate) in Adams County. His specializations are domestic relations and juvenile cases. However, during the past two years Judge Beldock has presided over misdemeanor, felony and traffic cases. Judge Beldock was rated above average by attorneys appearing before him and average by law enforcement personnel. He was commended for his fair dealings with prosecutors and defense attorneys and for having a perfect temperament. Among Judge Beldock’s criticisms is that he was “unpredictable.” In written evaluations, Judge Beldock scored very high in the areas of displaying a sense of justice, treating all parties equally, and his knowledge of evidence and procedure. Judge Beldock also scored high in displaying courtesy, diligence of work, and issuing prompt rulings and decisions. Ninety-five percent of the attorneys who evaluated Judge Beldock recommended retention. Whereas, the majority of the law enforcement questionnaires recommended against retention. All commission members rated this judge’s performance as good or excellent following his oral interview. Upon review of all information presented, the Commission members found Judge Beldock to be a thoughtful and deliberate judge who is conscientious and dedicated.
  • 1992 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Adams · Adams
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1992 Recommendation: Retain Judge Ovid R. Beldock has been a county judge since 1981. He served as a deputy district attorney in Denver County from 1972 to 1973, and subsequently, he was a sole practitioner from 1973 to 1980. From 1980 to 1981 he served as a juvenile commissioner in Adams County. He presently handles criminal cases. The number of survey questionnaires returned to the Commission for Judge Beldock was very low. A total of forty responses was received. Of those, 36 recommended retention; three recommended against retention; and one made no recommendation. Due to a very small sample of responses it is advisable that the low number be considered and given less weigh in assessing the performance of this judge. The statistical significance of this sample is therefore questionable. Judge Beldock received only 13 written comments from attorneys, police officers and court personnel. Twelve of the comments were equally divided between positive and negative; one was both positive and negative. Representative comments were: “great understanding of the positions and parties:” “seems to relate well with jurors;” “rules correctly on evidentiary matters;” “[the] methods he uses to the [the] results he does in not sound or based on written law . . . I seriously doubt there is a method [in his opinions] . . .[his} rulings need to be clearer;” “make quick judgments against [police] officers in regard to both civil and criminal matters.” Most of the attorneys who responded felt he displayed knowledge of the law, evidence and procedure. He was viewed as maintaining control in the courtroom. Eighty-three percent of the court personnel and 85% of the attorneys surveyed felt his oral decisions were clear. The Commission members who interviewed him rated the judge at an average of 3.44 on a scale of zero to four. One Commission member was impressed with his “team player” approach in working with other judges. Judge Beldock seemed open and honest in his answers throughout the oral interview conducted by the commission. The judge received his lowest scores from among Commission members in the questions related to his knowledge of some areas of the law. The 17th Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Ovid R. Beldock be Retained.

Surveys & reports

No survey reports on record for this judge.

Sources