Commit b706bb35 authored by John Hayes's avatar John Hayes
Browse files

Delete Petitioner attorney

parent 7eba8d9f
Petitioner attorney sought review of respondent state bar's recommendation of disbarment after a finding that the attorney had willfully and fraudulently misappropriated the funds of his clients and <a href="">caci instructions</a>
After finding that the attorney's clients had suffered great monetary losses resulting from his fraudulent representations and that the attorney had misappropriated his clients' fund, the disciplinary committee of the state bar recommended disbarment. Upon review of that recommendation, the court ordered that the attorney be disbarred from the practice of law, holding that the proceedings should not have been returned to the state bar for hearings on the issue of the attorney's mental competence at the time of the original hearings. The attorney failed to present evidence that he had been incapable, because of mental illness, of understanding the nature of those proceedings or of participating in his defense. The court found that the evidence sustained the finding of culpability on the part of the attorney and that the conclusion that the attorney had violated his oath and duties as an attorney was warranted. The sanction of disbarment was appropriate under the circumstances because the attorney had failed over a long time to meet the standards required of his profession and had on other occasions been disciplined for the mishandling of clients' funds.
The court ordered that the attorney be disbarred from the practice of law.
Defendant appealed his conviction in the Superior Court of Siskiyou County (California) on two counts of manslaughter by vehicle, under Cal. Penal Code § 192, subd. 3(a).
Defendant was charged with vehicular manslaughter for killing two people in a collision. Upon his conviction, defendant appealed, and contended that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions. On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions. The court noted that the proper standard in insufficiency appeals was not whether proof beyond reasonable doubt was established, but whether there was substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial, to sustain the verdict. The court held that the death certificate, which established the date and time of death, coupled with the testimony of two witnesses, was substantial enough evidence to support the convictions. The court noted that one witness saw the collision, and the other witness was a police officer, to whom defendant identified himself as the driver of the vehicle which collided with the victims. The oral testimony as to cause of death suggested that the victims were involved in the accident. From the offered proof, the court held that it was reasonable to conclude that the victims died in the accident caused by defendant.
The court affirmed the convictions of defendant for vehicular manslaughter.
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment