The Arizona Court of Appeals has upheld the 2014 firing of a former Pima County prosecutor for violating county rules of conduct, documents show.
Theresa Sheridan sued the Pima County Merit System Commission and the Pima County Attorney’s Office in November 2014, saying there was no substantial evidence to support her firing, according to Pima County Superior Court records.
Sheridan’s notice of dismissal from the County Attorney’s Office cited “incompetence, dishonesty and violation of various county and Arizona Supreme Court Rules and Rules of Professional Conduct,” according to the Court of Appeals written decision on Oct. 11.
Her appeal stated the Superior Court shouldn’t have upheld the decision because the county attorney violated her rights of due process and dismissed her without cause, and the commission’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious,” the document shows.
In February 2014, Sheridan was prosecuting the DUI case of a woman who was found to have had amphetamine and oxycodone in her system, for which she claimed to have a prescription.
Sheridan made a request for the woman’s prescription records, which were reviewed and redacted by the judge, before being made available to Sheridan for review.
She made arrangements with the judge’s administrative assistant to pick up the documents from the judge’s chambers, but wasn’t able to stop by that day. When Sheridan went in the next day, the judge’s division was on vacation and the law clerk told her she could come back Monday, according to the court documents.
Sheridan went into the judge’s chambers and looked through a stack of papers on the desk. She found what she was looking for and left the office with it, despite the law clerk stating she was uncomfortable with Sheridan taking the papers, the document shows.
When Sheridan returned to her office, she saw the redacted documents had been sent to her via email and went to review what she’d taken from the judge’s chambers.
Sheridan noticed the papers she took from the office were not redacted and placed them in an envelope that she sent to the judge’s assistant with a note of apology. She didn’t tell her superiors, the defense council or the court about what had happened, the document shows.
The following week, the judge learned what had taken place and scheduled a hearing, after which she called Sheridan’s boss. She was issued a letter of counseling stating that her behavior was unprofessional.
The defendant in the case eventually asked for sanctions due to prosecutorial misconduct. At the hearing, Sheridan admitted to glancing at the unredacted document briefly. In the previous hearing, she told the court six times she never looked at the papers.
The judge ruled she had committed intentional prosecutorial misconduct and dismissed the DUI case, according to the document.
Sheridan was placed on administrative leave with pay while an investigation was conducted and was eventually dismissed.
She appealed her firing to the merit commission, which unanimously upheld the decision after eight days of hearings.
Sheridan took her case to Superior Court, suing the County Attorney’s Office and the merit commission. In late 2015, the court found that neither the county attorney or the commission “abused its discretion, acted contrary to law or acted in an arbitrary or capricious matter,” according to the document.
In the appellate court’s decision, Judge Michael Miller wrote, “The mishandling of the documents and misrepresentations to the court alone support a finding of incompetence.”
By repeatedly denying looking at the paperwork during the first hearing, then later admitting she had, Sheridan provided the court with “substantial evidence supporting a finding of dishonesty,” Miller wrote.
The panel of three judges, which also included Judge Garye Vásquez and Judge Joseph Howard, also denied Sheridan’s request for attorney fees.
Still an attorney in good standing, Sheridan represented herself throughout the trial and appeal.
