MaryAnn Vielma

Trial Court · Adams · Adams

Meets Standards1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

2022 retention cycle
Trial Court · Adams · Adams
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 67.0% yes
88,683 yes · 43,736 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard 2022 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The 17th Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees (9-0) Judge MaryAnn "Mariana" Vielma MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS of integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. The Commission conducted a personal interview, read a selection of her legal opinions, observed her in court, reviewed her judicial performance survey report, interviewed the District Attorney and head of the Public Defenders’ office, and reviewed her self-evaluation. Of the surveys sent, responses were received by 39 attorneys and 17 non-attorneys. A total of 38 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. Judge Vielma was appointed on July 17, 2020, after serving two years as a magistrate in Adams County. Her docket is 25% criminal misdemeanor, 65% traffic (including DUI/DWAI), and 10% felony (pleas/sentencing/legacy docket). She received a 95% rating among attorneys for meeting performance standards, and also received above-average marks on case management, application and knowledge of law, diligence, demeanor, and communication skills. Observations of Judge Vielma by the Commission during hearings showed that she has an exceptional judicial temperament even when dealing with difficult situations. She did, however, score below average in the survey responses from non-lawyers on making the reasoning behind her rulings known and, on her willingness, to make decisions without regard to possible outside pressure. There was also a notable difference in how she was perceived, in some survey areas, by attorneys as contrasted with non-attorneys. This raises concern that non-attorneys appearing before her may not fully understand court proceedings. The Commission recognizes that there may be multiple reasons for the survey differences between the perceptions of attorneys and non-attorneys, including that Judge Vielma has only served on the County Court Bench since July of 2020. The Commission believes that some of the differences between the perceptions of attorneys and non-attorneys is due to the nature of the County Court docket she is handling and that the positive qualities identified in her surveys will address the concerns of non-attorneys going forward. In her self-evaluation, Judge Vielma indicated that since being appointed to the Bench she has engaged in extensive study which the Commission believes will be of benefit in future rulings. During her interview Judge Vielma spoke of her involvement in the community and informed the Commission of her 2022 Colorado Women’s Bar Association Judicial Excellence Award. The Commission believes this award was well deserved and reflects her standing in the community. Her willingness to pursue continued education and accept constructive criticism during her interview from the Commission positively reflect on her service to the legal profession and her integrity as a judge.

Surveys & reports

2022 cycle
- 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  3.6
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  95%
  39 respondents
  Non-attorneys recommend
  58%
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge MaryAnn Vielma 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . 13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Vielma, 38 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 38 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.6 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Vielma All County Judges Judge Vielma All County Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge MaryAnn Vielma 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 95% 83% 83% 80% 58% 60% 40% 25% 17% 20% 13% 12% 5% 4% 6% 0% Judge Vielma All County Judges Judge Vielma All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Vielma Vielma Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 95% 83% 58% 83% standards No, does not meet 0% 13% 17% 12% performance standards No opinion 5% 4% 25% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge MaryAnn Vielma 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.6 Case Management 3.4 3.4 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.7 Communications 3.5 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.7 Demeanor 3.4 3.5 Fairness 3.3 Judge Vielma All County Judges Judge All County Vielma Judges Case Management 3.6 3.4 Application and 3.4 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.7 3.5 Diligence 3.6 3.4 Demeanor 3.7 3.4 Fairness 3.5 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge MaryAnn Vielma 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 39 18% 64% 25 Non- 17 - - 13 Attorneys *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Vielma received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge MaryAnn Vielma 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Vielma Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Vielma Attorneys 3.8 Judge Vielma Non-Attorneys 3.0 County Judge Vielma Judge Vielma Judge Vielma Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.5 3.5 3.9 3.0 33 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.4 3.9 2.9 37 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.3 31 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.3 35 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge MaryAnn Vielma 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Vielma Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Vielma Attorneys 3.8 Judge Vielma Non-Attorneys 2.7 County Judge Vielma Judge Vielma Judge Vielma Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.5 3.3 3.8 2.8 35 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 24 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 21 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 23 rules Giving reasons for rulings 2.7 3.3 N/A 2.7 12 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 2.9 3.3 N/A 2.9 11 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge MaryAnn Vielma 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Vielma Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Vielma Attorneys 3.9 Judge Vielma Non-Attorneys 3.2 County Judge Vielma Judge Vielma Judge Vielma Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.6 3.5 4 3.0 37 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 4 3.4 4 N/A 21 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 12 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.2 3.7 N/A 3.2 12 what’s being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge MaryAnn Vielma 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Vielma Score 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Vielma Attorneys 4 Judge Vielma Non-Attorneys 3.1 County Judge Vielma Judge Vielma Judge Vielma Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.8 3.4 4 3.5 35 Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.4 4 3.2 37 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 2.8 3.3 N/A 2.8 12 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge MaryAnn Vielma 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Vielma Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Vielma Attorneys 3.8 Judge Vielma Non-Attorneys 3.2 County Judge Vielma Judge Vielma Judge Vielma Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 24 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.4 3.9 N/A 24 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 24 for cases Beginning court on time. 3.2 3.5 N/A 3.2 12 Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 11 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 11 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.2 3.5 N/A 3.2 12 Managing court proceedings so 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 11 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge MaryAnn Vielma 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Vielma Score 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Vielma Attorneys 3.9 Judge Vielma Non-Attorneys 2.7 Judge Vielma County Judge Vielma Judge Vielma Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 2.8 3.4 N/A 2.8 12 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 2.7 3.3 N/A 2.7 11 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 9 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.1 3.4 N/A 3.1 11 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.6 3.3 3.9 2.9 36 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 25 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge MaryAnn Vielma 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Vielma, 38 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 38 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the administration, a total of 89,078 survey invitations were sent to 10,845 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2022. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 8.2 judges. In total 9,005 surveys were completed with an additional 9,895 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 10% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 21%. Non-attorneys The 2022 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 86,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 5,463 surveys were completed with an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2022 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on June 15th, 2021. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2021 on June 15th, 2021. Reminders were sent on June 30th and July 9th, 2021. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2021 with email invitations sent on August 23rd, 2021 and reminders was sent on September 2nd, 2021 and September 14th, 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2021 on November 9th, 2021. Reminders sent on November 18th and December 2nd, 2021. The final data collection took place in January 2022. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2021 on January 19th, 2022. Reminders were sent on January 28th, February 2nd and 12th, 2022. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2021 and ran through the response deadline of February 28th, 2022. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge MaryAnn Vielma 13 ## Page 14 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 28th, 2022. During this period 938 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 28th or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2022 were held over for the 2023 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 90,845 6,068 7% Court Staff Email Invite 3,471 1,861 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 220 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 938 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2021 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge MaryAnn Vielma 14 ## Page 15 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge MaryAnn Vielma 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 220 39 25 64% Staff - 4 4 - Others 292 13 9 69% Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 17 13 - Total Respondents - 56 38 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge MaryAnn Vielma 16

Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.

Sources

2022 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026