2026 retention · County Court · Alamosa County
45 percentile · rank 20 of 36
composite 0100
43 percentile · rank 62 of 108
composite 0100
19 41st percentile among peers · 28th percentile statewide
1060
Composite index 44.91 among peers (44.75 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.40 of 4 · 70.83 percentile
1.903.80
3.33 of 4 · 62.50 percentile
1.873.75
0.00% 1.39 percentile
0.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 0.00%
Non-attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 88.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.50median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.40median 3.20 | 3.20 | |
| Communications | 3.50median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Diligence | 3.30median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Demeanor | 3.10median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Fairness | 3.20median 3.10 | 3.10 |
| Year | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade | 0.60 | 3.00 | 3.10 | 3.20 | 3.20 | 3.10 | 3.10 |
| Responses | 1 | 16 | 27 | 33 | 26 | 28 | 26 |
Commission: meets standards (6–0)
The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (6-0), with two commission vacancies and two commissioners absent, finds that Judge Daniel Walzl MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The performance standards contemplate the judge’s integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public.
Judge Walzl presides over a busy courtroom that addresses cases across a range of areas, including civil law, criminal law, misdemeanors, traffic and small claims. Both attorneys and individuals representing themselves appear in front of him. He also had a busy jury trial schedule in 2025, with eighteen jury trials held in his court.
The 2026 Judicial Survey Report for Judge Walzl had an overall rating of 3.4, up from his previous rating of 3.1 in 2025. Judge Walzl’s personal stated value is that he endeavors to reflect the community of Alamosa’s expectations and standards in the courtroom while applying rules and laws fairly. He recognizes that Alamosa County court is a high volume, high conflict courtroom. He has a fair expectation that attorneys act professionally and come prepared for court. Judge Walzl’s 2026 Judicial Survey Report had a mix of individuals responding, with fourteen non-attorneys finding that he met performance standards, two attorneys and one non-attorney finding that he did not meet performance standards, and one non-attorney having no opinion on whether he met performance standards. The Commission reviewed both the survey responses and Judge Walzl’s self-evaluation and decisions, in addition to interviewing Judge Walzl regarding his survey feedback and observing his courtroom. The Commission specifically heard and addressed the ongoing feedback from a small number of attorneys that are critical of his performance, which Judge Walzl responded to with candor and insight. The Commission concluded that such critiques from attorneys were not credible. A breakdown of all of the respondents’ scores of demeanor (3.1), fairness (3.2), ability to communicate (3.5), case management (3.5), and application of the law (3.4) reflected Judge Walzl’s increase in score in several categories from his last retention cycle, including the ability to communicate, case management, and application and knowledge of the law.
Judge Walzl earned his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder in 1999. After graduating law school, he served as a law clerk for the Honorable Thomas M. Jahnke in the Superior Court, First Judicial District, Ketchikan, Alaska. After completing his clerkship, he then returned to Colorado and spent the next eleven years working as a deputy state public defender, first in Pueblo and then in Alamosa, before becoming County Court Judge for Alamosa in 2011.
2022 retention · District Court · 12th Judicial District
18 percentile · rank 55 of 67
composite 0100
13 percentile · rank 117 of 134
composite 0100
34 23rd percentile among peers · 27th percentile statewide
15132
Composite index 22.89 among peers (17.29 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.20 of 4 · 21.64 percentile
2.603.80
3.27 of 4 · 29.10 percentile
2.583.82
69.00% 17.91 percentile
43.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 69.00%
Non-attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 94.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.40median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.10median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Communications | 3.40median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Diligence | 3.30median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Demeanor | 3.20median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Fairness | 3.20median 3.40 | 3.40 |
Commission: meets standards (7–0)
The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (7-0) finds that the Honorable Daniel A. Walzl MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The performance standards contemplate the judge’s integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public.
The 2021 Judicial Survey Report for Judge Walzl had 28 individuals -a mostly even mix of attorneys and non-attorneys providing an overall grade of 3.1, which was less than the average overall grade of 3.4 of all county judges surveyed in the state in 2021. 53% of survey respondents believed he met performance standards as opposed to 40% who stated he did not and 7% who took no position. With that said, 100% of all non-attorney survey respondents stated that he met performance standards and non-attorney respondents overall had very positive grades and comments regarding his fairness, communication skills, promptness, application of the law, and demeanor. Further, apart from diligence (scoring 2.9 out of 4.0), a close breakdown of all survey respondent’s grading of his demeanor, fairness, ability to communicate, case management, and application of the law demonstrated scores that were close to the average for all county court judges in the state. His overall grading supports a judge who meets performance standards.
The Commission reviewed the above-cited survey responses in detail and interviewed Judge Walzl addressing the survey results, particularly the results by a limited number of attorneys who were critical of him in the areas of integrity and judicial temperament. The Commission concluded and found that such critiques were not credible, personally motivated, and primarily the complaints of only one attorney. The survey results from other attorneys and particularly, the public, were positive and demonstrated that he met judicial performance criteria, particularly given his large docket handling all misdemeanors, small claim cases, and evictions. Judge Walzl took his critiques seriously from an interim review completed in 2021 and the commission believes addressed any concerns by undertaking relevant trainings and working to improve his courtroom demeanor. The Commission further concludes that Judge Walzl has appropriate legal knowledge, higher than average communication skills, excellent judicial temperament and integrity of the highest degree, and provides valuable service to the legal profession and the public.
Judge Walzl was appointed as the Alamosa County Court Judge in 2011. He graduated from the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia in 1996 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology and graduated from the University of Colorado with a Juris Doctor degree in 1999. During law school Judge Walzl clerked with the City Attorney’s Office in Boulder and DNA People’s Legal Service in Shiprock, New Mexico. After law school Judge Walzl clerked for the Honorable Thomas M. Jahnke in the Superior Court, First Judicial District, Ketchikan Alaska. Upon returning to Colorado, Judge Walzl worked as a deputy state public defender in Pueblo and Alamosa for eleven years prior to taking the bench as the Alamosa County Judge.
2018 retention · County Court · Alamosa County
71 percentile · rank 21 of 71
composite 0100
68 percentile · rank 41 of 128
composite 0100
77 62nd percentile among peers · 61st percentile statewide
4130
Composite index 67.61 among peers (65.10 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.72 of 4 · 83.80 percentile
2.593.90
3.64 of 4 · 74.65 percentile
2.593.90
80.00% 44.37 percentile
0.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Overall grade
- 3.48
- Say “meets standards”
- 80.00%
Non-attorneys
- Overall grade
- 3.78
- Say “meets standards”
- 98.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.55median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.66median 3.38 | 3.38 | |
| Communications | 3.80median 3.58 | 3.58 | |
| Diligence | 3.42median 3.42 | 3.42 | |
| Demeanor | 3.58median 3.49 | 3.49 | |
| Fairness | 3.83median 3.60 | 3.60 |
Commission: meets standards (9–0)
The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance by a unanimous vote (9-0) agrees that Judge Daniel A. Walzl MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
Judge Walzl was appointed to the Alamosa County Court in November of 2011. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge Walzl was the managing deputy of the Alamosa regional office for the Colorado State Public Defender. He had been with the Public Defender’s Office for ten years. Judge Walzl received his undergraduate degree from the University of Virginia, and in 1999, his law degree from the University of Colorado School of Law.
The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Walzl, reviewed the self-assessment report completed by Judge Walzl, reviewed comments received from interested parties during the evaluation, conducted courtroom observations, and reviewed survey responses from non-attorneys and attorneys who had experience with Judge Walzl. Among the survey questions was “based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Walzl meets judicial performance standards?” Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 80% answered yes, meets performance standards 13% answered no, does not meet performance standards and 7% had no opinion regarding whether Judge Walzl meets or does not meet performance standards. Of non-attorneys responding to the survey, 98% answered yes, meets performance standards, 2% answered no, does not meet performance standards. A total of 17 attorneys and 60 non-attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Walzl’s performance.
Judge Walzl presides over criminal cases, civil cases of less than $25,000, small claims cases of less than $7,500, civil protection orders, landlord/tenant cases, name changes, and traffic infractions. Judge Walzl was instrumental in the development of the DUI Court which has been successful for the Twelfth Judicial District. He states that the DUI court, “is a different approach that fits me well.” Judge Walzl received high marks from attorneys responding to the survey for his communication, specifically ensuring all participants understand the proceedings. Survey respondents expressed some concern over Judge Walzl’s efforts to stay on schedule with the docket, but overall, he is effective in managing his case load while being diligent in his preparation and impartial in his judgements. Judge Walzl successfully completed an improvement plan addressing judicial demeanor issues arising out of the prior round of performance reviews, and the Commission has determined that the issues of judicial demeanor raised in that plan have been satisfactorily addressed.