1 IN RE KING: IS REHABILITATION FROM SERIOUS CRIMES POSSIBLE? Suzanne Diaz INTRODUCTION To be admitted to practice law in Arizona, an applicant must prove he or she possesses the appropriate character and fitness, which includes a showing of good moral character. 1 In 2005, the Arizona Supreme Court stated that such a showing by an applicant whose background includes serious criminal behavior may be a near impossibility. 2 Just a year later, in In re King, the court addressed whether a convicted felon who had pleaded guilty to attempted murder could satisfy that character and fitness requirement. 3 In a split decision, the majority noted that it may be virtually impossible for an applicant convicted of a serious crime, such as attempted murder, to prove his or her good moral character through rehabilitation. 4 The court found that King had not met this high threshold. 5 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND OF IN RE KING A. King s Crime Twenty-nine years before applying for admission to the Arizona Bar, James King shot two men in a drunken outburst and was convicted by a Texas court of attempted murder. 6 At the time, King was a twenty-four-year-old reserve deputy constable, a position that permitted King to carry a handgun while in uniform and to keep the gun in his glove compartment when off duty ARIZ. SUP. CT. R. 36(b). Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona establish the evaluation process for candidates for admission to the State Bar of Arizona. The court most recently amended these rules in See In re King, 136 P.3d 878, 881 n.5 (Ariz. 2006). These most recent amendments did not apply to King s case because he filed his application for admission prior to their effective date of December 1, Id. Except where noted, the rules cited in this Case Note were not affected by the 2005 amendments. See infra notes 27, and accompanying text. 2. In re Hamm, 123 P.3d 652, 662 (Ariz. 2005). 3. King, 136 P.3d Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. at 880.
2 670 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 48:669 The shooting occurred in the early morning of December 31, 1977, following several hours of drinking at a neighborhood bar. 8 Earlier the previous day, King learned that he had been passed over for a position as a full-time deputy constable. 9 While in civilian clothing and off-duty, he became severely intoxicated at the bar and began to argue with two other men whom he knew were convicted felons. 10 When King left the bar some time after midnight, the two men soon followed. 11 Both men were unarmed. 12 Reports about what happened outside the bar conflict, but it was not disputed that King shot both men with his service handgun several times at close range, emptying his fully loaded weapon and firing some bullets through the bar door. 13 There was no evidence that King warned the men that he would shoot if they did not stay back. 14 Although the gunshots seriously wounded the victims, both survived. 15 King then got into his car, where a security guard who witnessed the shootings aimed his own gun at King, ordered him out of the car, and placed him under arrest. 16 King tried to shoot himself with his gun, but after realizing it was empty, he took out a knife and made superficial cuts on his leg and throat. 17 Finally, King threw the knife out of the car, got out, and was handcuffed. 18 King was indicted on two counts of attempted murder and pleaded guilty to one count as part of a plea agreement. 19 The Texas court sentenced him to seven years in prison. 20 He only served four months, however, before the court suspended his sentence and put him on probation. 21 During probation, King participated in counseling and group therapy before the court set aside his conviction in February B. King s Life After Prison King later graduated from college and law school, and passed the Texas Bar Exam. 23 The Texas Board of Law Examiners found that King had the good moral character required for admission to the Texas Bar and admitted him to 8. Id. 9. Id. 10. Id. 11. Id. 12. Id. 13. Id. 14. Id. 15. Id. at Id. at 881 n Id. 18. Id. 19. Id. at Id. 21. Id. 22. Id. 23. Id.
3 2006] IN RE KING 671 practice in Between 1994 and 2003, King practiced law in Texas, married, adopted his wife s child, and had additional children with his wife. 25 In 2003, King transferred to his firm s Phoenix office, passed the Arizona Bar Exam, and applied to practice law in Arizona. 26 The Committee on Character and Fitness ( the Committee ) 27 found that King had failed to prove his good character and fitness as required for admission to the Bar, even though it recognized that he had presented significant evidence of both rehabilitation and social contributions. 28 The Committee recommended that the Arizona Supreme Court not admit King because it was unable to overlook the seriousness of his crime. 29 When the court subsequently declined to consider King s petition for review, it effectively denied his application for Bar membership. 30 Six months later, King re-applied, and the Committee held another hearing on April 21, King presented additional evidence to prove his good character and fitness to practice law in Arizona. 32 This time, the Committee recommended King be admitted, although it failed to explain the reasons for this different conclusion. 33 On its own motion, the Arizona Supreme Court took King s application under consideration. 34 II. PROCESS FOR MEMBERSHIP TO THE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA The Arizona Supreme Court Rules require an applicant to the Arizona Bar to submit a character report. 35 At the time King applied for admission, the applicant bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he possesses the requisite character and fitness qualifying him for admission to the Arizona [B]ar. 36 The most recent amendments to the Rules changed the standard so that an applicant must prove his character and fitness by clear and convincing 24. Id. 25. Id. 26. Id. 27. The Committee on Character and Fitness determines whether Arizona Bar applicants possess the requisite character and fitness to practice law in Arizona. ARIZ. SUP. CT. R. 33(a), 34, 36. Prior to the most recent amendments to the rules, the Committee could recommend to the Arizona Supreme Court that the applicant be admitted, conditionally admitted, or denied admission. R. 36(a)(4) (2004) (amended 2005). The current rules alternatively permit the Committee to recommend denial of admission with an accompanying suggestion that the applicant reapply after specific circumstances occur, such as his receiving treatment. R. 36(a)(4)(C). 28. King, 136 P.3d at Id. 30. Id. 31. Id. 32. Id. By the time of the second hearing, King had secured legal representation, and the Committee membership had changed. Id. 33. Id. The court noted that explanation was not required, but would have been helpful. Id. at 881 n Id. at See ARIZ. SUP. CT. R. 34(a). 36. King, 136 P.3d at 882 (citing ARIZ. SUP. CT. R. 36(a)(3), (f)(5) (2004) (amended 2005)).
4 672 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 48:669 evidence. 37 The Rules direct the Committee to consider the applicant s criminal history and current and past possession of the following characteristics: honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, and respect for the law and the legal institutions and for ethical codes governing attorneys. 38 If the applicant has a felony conviction, such as attempted murder, the Committee must conduct an investigation into the criminal conduct and, if the crime was violent, it cannot recommend admission without holding at least an informal hearing. 39 An informal hearing panel requires at least three Committee members. 40 At least three members of the informal hearing panel or a majority of the panel, whichever is greater, must recommend admission to the Bar. 41 If the panel recommends against admission, the Committee must hold a formal hearing. 42 In evaluating an applicant s criminal history, the Committee must consider several factors to determine the significance of the prior conduct. 43 These include the applicant s age at the time of the conduct, the recency of his conduct, the seriousness of the conduct, evidence of rehabilitation, proof of positive social contributions since the conduct, the applicant s candor during the admissions process, and the materiality of any omissions or misrepresentations by the applicant. 44 The Committee s decision to deny admission to the Arizona Bar is final unless the applicant petitions the Arizona Supreme Court for review 45 or the court decides to consider the application on its own motion. 46 When the court reviews an application, it independently evaluates whether the applicant possesses the requisite character and fitness to practice law. 47 The court reviews the application de novo and decides questions of both law and fact. 48 When an applicant previously convicted of a serious crime applies for admission to the Arizona Bar, the court conducts a two-part inquiry. 49 First, the court determines whether the applicant has proven complete rehabilitation from the character deficits that led to the commission of the crime. 50 If the applicant 37. ARIZ. SUP. CT. R. 36(b), (f)(2)(e). 38. R. 36(b)(1). The 2005 amendments to the Rules did not change these factors. 39. R. 36(d). 40. R. 36(e)(3). 41. R. 36(e)(5). 42. Id. 43. R. 36(b)(4). 44. Id. Other factors include the reliability of the information concerning the conduct, the consideration given by the applicant to relevant laws at the time, the factors underlying the conduct, and the cumulative effect of the conduct. Id. 45. R. 36(f)(6), (g)(1). 46. R. 33(a). 47. Hamm, 123 P.3d at Id.; see Flynn P. Carey, Case Note, In re Hamm: From Behind Bars to the Arizona Bar?, 48 ARIZ. L. REV. 397, 399 (2006). 49. King,136 P.3d at Id.
5 2006] IN RE KING 673 meets this prerequisite, the court must then decide whether the applicant presently possesses good moral character. 51 The seriousness of the past criminal conduct affects the burden of proving complete rehabilitation, with the burden increasing in relation to the seriousness of the crime. 52 Although no per se rule prohibits applicants convicted of serious crimes from being admitted to the Bar, 53 proving rehabilitation is virtually impossible for someone convicted of extremely damning past misconduct, such as first-degree murder or attempted murder. 54 To prove rehabilitation, the applicant must identify the weakness that caused him to engage in criminal misconduct and then demonstrate that he has overcome that weakness, 55 and must demonstrate that he or she accepted responsibility for the criminal conduct. 56 If the applicant proves he or she is rehabilitated, the court must then evaluate his or her present moral character 57 because showing rehabilitation from criminal conduct does not, in itself, establish good moral character. 58 In doing so, the court considers past misconduct to determine what past bad acts reveal about an applicant s current character. 59 III. ANALYSIS OF KING S APPLICATION Applying the two-prong test to the facts in In re King, the court determined that King failed to prove the rehabilitation required by the first prong. 60 That failure made discussion of the second prong superfluous; thus, the court did not consider whether King had otherwise proven his good moral character. 61 Despite urgings by the Arizona State Bar to the contrary, the Arizona Supreme Court has declined to adopt a per se rule excluding applicants convicted of serious crimes from Bar membership. 62 A. The Majority Decision The four-justice majority concluded that King had not proved his rehabilitation and, on that basis, denied him admission to the Arizona Bar. 63 Due to the seriousness of King s crime, he needed to present an extraordinary amount or quality of evidence, 64 even under the preponderance of the evidence standard Id.; see also Hamm, 123 P.3d at King,136 P.3d at Id.; Hamm, 123 P.3d at King, 136 P.3d at 882; Hamm, 123 P.3d at King, 136 P.3d at Hamm, 123 P.3d at King, 136 P.3d at Hamm, 123 P.3d at Id. at King, 136 P.3d at Id. 62. King, 136 P.3d at 882 n Id. 64. King, 136 P.3d at 883. The court emphasized that King shot two unarmed men at close range and also that he was a peace officer, a position of public trust, at the time. Id. at 882 & n.9.
6 674 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 48:669 Additionally, proof of complete rehabilitation required King to show that he both (1) accepted responsibility for his past criminal conduct, and (2) identified and over[came] the weakness that led to the unlawful conduct. 66 The court found that some evidence showed King had accepted responsibility for his conduct, while other evidence indicated he had not done so fully. 67 King had accepted responsibility for his conduct by admitting during Committee hearings that he shot the men, by telling friends, coworkers, former employers, and judges of his crime, and by expressing his remorse to them and the Committee. 68 On the other hand, he minimized his culpability by stating on his applications to law school and the Arizona Bar that he had accepted the plea agreement because it was in his best interest given the lack of witnesses on his behalf, the anti-police feelings of the day, and his emotional state. 69 According to the court, these statements by King implied that he had a defense to the crime but chose not to use it. 70 In addition, the court felt King had not been entirely candid. 71 During the Committee hearings, he remembered details of the crime that would have supported his defense that he shot the victims out of fear, yet he claimed he could not remember events related by witnesses that contradicted his version of what had occurred. 72 Further, the court found that King had not identified and overcome the weakness that caused his criminal conduct, and thus had not met the rehabilitation requirement. 73 The court noted that King did not explicitly identify, during Committee hearings, either the weakness in character that led to his misconduct or, in fact, to any other possible cause of the misconduct. 74 At oral argument, King pointed to stress and alcohol abuse as the causes of his misconduct, but he still failed to identify the character flaw that led to his inappropriate response to the stress and abuse of alcohol. 75 According to the court, he could have identified his character weakness by presenting evidence that he suffered from emotional problems at the time. 76 The court stated that King s failure to identify his character 65. The court indicated that the nature of the crime affects the quantum of evidence needed to satisfy the applicant s burden, not the burden itself. Id. at 883. Presumably, the amended Rule 36, under which bar applicants must prove good moral character by clear and convincing evidence, ARIZ. SUP. CT. R. 36(b), will make it even more difficult for someone convicted of a serious crime to meet the character and fitness requirement. See Carey, supra note 48, at King, 136 P.3d at 883 (internal citation omitted). 67. Id. 68. Id. 69. Id. 70. Id. 71. Id. at Id. 73. Id. 74. Id. 75. Id. 76. Id. Long ago in the context of a Bar application, the court acknowledged that young men often have serious emotional and psychological problems. In re Walker, 539 P.2d 891, 895 (Ariz. 1975). In In re Walker, the applicant failed to register with the Selective Service when he turned eighteen. Id. at 892. Although he admitted he became
7 2006] IN RE KING 675 weakness resulted in its uncertainty that he had appropriately addressed and overcome the weakness. 77 In any event, even if he had identified his character flaw, King did not convince the court that he had satisfactorily dealt with the weakness. 78 The court credited King for not engaging in other serious misconduct or alcohol-related incidents for twenty-nine years and for appropriately coping with stress during that time. 79 The court declined, however, to accept that as sufficient proof that King had overcome his weakness, instead requiring more than the mere passage of time without incident. 80 Although the court had previously stated that professional counseling is not required to prove rehabilitation, it did recognize that counselors can help individuals to identify reasons for inappropriate behavior and to develop appropriate responses to prevent future misconduct. 81 While acknowledging the benefit of the counseling and alcohol-abuse prevention sessions that King participated in, the court found other evidence that countered that benefit. 82 For example, King failed to provide details of the type of treatment he had undergone and could not say with certainty whether he had successfully completed any programs. 83 In addition, although he partially blamed alcohol abuse for his misconduct, he denied being an alcoholic and continued to drink occasionally. 84 Because the court concluded that King did not meet the rehabilitation requirement, it did not reach the second part of the two-prong inquiry, that is, consideration of King s present good moral character. 85 Instead, the court denied King s application for admission to the Bar. 86 B. The Dissent The sole dissenter, Justice Hurwitz, argued that the court adopted in practice the bright-line rule that it expressly repudiated, a rule excluding anyone convicted of a serious crime from admission to the Arizona State Bar. 87 In his opinion, Justice Hurwitz expressed his belief that King certainly had proven his rehabilitation and should have been admitted to the Bar. 88 Justice Hurwitz aware of his obligation when he was nineteen, he did not register until he was almost twenty-six. Id. The court found that Walker lacked the good moral character required to practice law because, although he legitimately may have suffered emotional and psychological problems, he continued to avoid registering for the draft after those problems ceased. Id. at King, 136 P.3d at Id. 79. Id. 80. Id. 81. Id. at 884 (citing In re Arrotta, 96 P.3d 213, 218 (Ariz. 2004)). 82. King, 136 P.3d at Id. at Id. 85. Id. 86. Id. 87. Id. at 887 (Hurwitz, J., dissenting). 88. Id. at 888.
8 676 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 48:669 emphasized King s longtime membership in the Texas Bar and Texas s finding that King possessed good moral character when it admitted him. 89 Additionally, he noted King s model citizenship for nearly thirty years, which included supporting a family, being involved with his church, and participating in an Inn of Court and other leadership and charitable groups. 90 Justice Hurwitz rejected the court s statement that proof of rehabilitation is virtually impossible for all serious prior misconduct. 91 He agreed with the finding in In re Hamm that it was virtually impossible for an applicant convicted of first degree murder, 92 which is the most serious crime Arizona law recognizes, but distinguished first degree murder from attempted murder. 93 He concluded that King s record as an attorney, along with the numerous, emphatic recommendations he supplied to the Committee, adequately ensured that the public would be safe with King practicing law in Arizona. 94 CONCLUSION In sum, the court s decision in In re King leaves open the slim possibility that someone convicted of a serious crime may eventually be admitted to membership in the Arizona Bar. The In re King court took a slight turn towards that eventuality by emphasizing that its decision did not effectively exclude all applicants guilty of serious past misconduct from practicing law in Arizona. 95 This language differs from the court s unanimous decision in In re Hamm, where it acknowledged the difficulty such applicants faced in proving present good moral character and admitted [p]erhaps such a showing, is, in practical terms, a near impossibility. 96 This change in language may indicate the court s inclination to admit an applicant convicted of a serious offense if the applicant meets the requirements of the two-prong test it applied in In re King, a difficult challenge to be sure. 89. Id. at Id. at Id. at 889 (internal quotation marks omitted). 92. Id.; see also Hamm, 123 P.3d at 653, Id. 94. Id. at Id. at Hamm, 123 P.3d at 662.
Tuesday 18th November, 2008. On March 19, 2008 came the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, by W. Scott Street, III, its Secretary-Treasurer, and presented to the Court a petition, approved by the Virginia
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-0553 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Darrell
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: September 14, 2015 S15Z0555. IN THE MATTER OF JONATHAN RICHARD HUDDLESTON. PER CURIAM. On January 28, 2013, Jonathan Richard Huddleston submitted an application
This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter 2014 UT 18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH In the Matter of the Discipline of JERE B. RENEER, JERE B. RENEER,
Restoration of Civil Rights Helping People regain their Civil Liberties Consequences of a Felony Food Stamps and social security benefits: People convicted of a felony for possession or sell of controlled
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE T. HENLEY GRAVES SUSSEX COUNTY COURTHOUSE RESIDENT JUDGE 1 THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2 GEORGETOWN, DE 19947 (302) 856-5257 December 16, 2014 Natalie S. Woloshin, Esquire
03/01/2013 "See News Release 012 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 12-B-2701 IN RE: MARK LANE JAMES, II ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary
Community Legal Information Association of Prince Edward Island, Inc. Going to Court: Criminal Trial Procedure If you've been charged with a crime and your case has not been diverted from the courts system,
A Victim s Guide to Understanding the Criminal Justice System The Bartholomew County Prosecutor s Office Victim Assistance Program Prosecutor: William Nash 234 Washington Street Columbus, IN 47201 Telephone:
[Cite as In re Application of Wagner, 119 Ohio St.3d 280, 2008-Ohio-3916.] IN RE APPLICATION OF WAGNER. [Cite as In re Application of Wagner, 119 Ohio St.3d 280, 2008-Ohio-3916.] Attorneys Character and
BASIC CRIMINAL LAW Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Joe Bodiford Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer www.floridacriminaldefense.com www.blawgger.com THE FLORIDA CRIMINAL PROCESS Source: http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/cj-flowchart.html
SERVICES FOR FORENSIC CLIENTS GENERAL LEGAL RIGHTS CHAPTER 13 DESCRIPTION OF FORENSIC POPULATION The forensic program for the State of Missouri is designed to provide services to all circuit courtordered
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. AARON REGINALD CHAMBERS, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0392-PR Filed March 4, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
Community Legal Information Association of Prince Edward Island, Inc. Sentencing This pamphlet gives you some information about sentencing in criminal court. If you are charged with a criminal offence,
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2015 WI 38 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: 2014AP2906-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jon Evenson, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v.
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc RYAN JOHN CHRONIS, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CV-08-0394-SA Petitioner, ) ) Maricopa County v. ) Superior Court ) No. CR2008-006808-001 DT HON. ROLAND J. STEINLE, JUDGE
Case 106-cr-00271-PLF Document 24 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GUSTAVO VILLANUEVO-SOTELO, Defendant. CRIMINAL
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2012 WI 123 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Thomas E. Bielinski, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Thomas
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 14-3137 United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Lacresia Joy White lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant Appeal
Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #031 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Per Curiams handed down on the 27th day of May, 2016, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2016-B
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of DAVID E. SHAPIRO PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT No. 691, Disciplinary Docket No. 2 Supreme Court No. 74 DB 1989 - Disciplinary
Elinoff v. People, No. 03PDJ048. 11/14/03. Attorney Regulation. The Hearing Board reinstated Kallman S. Elinoff, attorney registration number 18677 from the practice of law in the State of Colorado. SUPREME
Summary of Opinion. People v. Berkley, No. 99PDJ073, 12/7/1999. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and Hearing Board reinstated Petitioner, Martin J. Berkley to the practice of law effective
Criminal Law Glossary Arrest Charge Convicted Court Crime/Offence Crown Attorney or Prosecutor Criminal Custody Guilty Illegal Innocent Lawyer To seize a person under authority of the law. Police officers
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellant, v. JAMES EARL CHRISTIAN, Appellee. Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-02-0233-PR Court of Appeals Division One No. 1 CA-CR 00-0654 Maricopa County Superior
ENROLLED Regular Session, 1997 HOUSE BILL NO. 2412 BY REPRESENTATIVE JACK SMITH AN ACT To enact Chapter 33 of Title 13 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, comprised of R.S. 13:5301 through 5304,
KANE COUNTY DRUG REHABILITATION COURT COURT RULES AND PROCEDURES I. MISSION The Illinois General Assembly has recognized that there is a critical need for a criminal justice program that will reduce the
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOHN F. MONFELI, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0126 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. LC2012-000405-001 The Honorable
The Foundation of Juvenile Practice Part 1: You are Adversary Counsel, NOT a GAL! Private Bar Certification Forensic Exercise November 19, 2014 Role of Juvenile Defense Counsel: Forensic Exercise: Question
Standards and Requirements for Specialist Certification and Recertification The following are Standards and Requirements for Certification and Recertification of lawyers as Criminal Law Specialists. The
ARTICLE 36: KANE COUNTY DRUG REHABILITATION COURT RULES AND PROCEDURES (a) Mission: The Illinois General Assembly has recognized that there is a critical need for a criminal justice program that will reduce
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE, v. ID No. 1408013012 JOSE G. LOPEZ-MONCADA, Defendant. ORDER Defendant has moved for a modification of the
A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA KRISTINA R. DOBSON, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE CRANE MCCLENNEN, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA, Respondent
BEFORE THE EVIDENTIARY PANEL FOR STATE BAR DISTRICT NO. 08-2 STATE BAR OF TEXAS 11 Austin Office COMMISSION FOR LAWYER * DISCIPLINE, * Petitioner * * 201400539 v. * * CHARLES J. SEBESTA, JR., * Respondent
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
MODEL CRIMINAL DEFENSE MENTORING PROGRAM Utah State Bar New Lawyer Training Program The following is submitted as a Model Mentoring Plan for the criminal defense practice field. It was prepared by an experienced
Morgan County Prosecuting Attorney Debra MH McLaughlin Directions: From Fairfax Street Entrance, Enter Main Door, turn Right through door, up the narrow staircase. Office is at top of steps. (Old Circuit
NOT ACTUAL PROTECTION: ACTUAL INNOCENCE STANDARD FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN CALIFORNIA DOES NOT ELIMINATE ACTUAL LAWSUITS AND ACTUAL PAYMENTS By Celeste King, JD and Barrett Breitung, JD* In 1998
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 01-10301 v. D.C. No. CR-00-1506-TUC- MANUEL HERNANDEZ-CASTELLANOS, aka Manuel Francisco
2005 WI 102 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2005AP838-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Joseph Engl, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v.
OVERVIEW OF STATE LAWS THAT BAN DISCRIMINATION BY EMPLOYERS As states consider passing laws that prohibit employment discrimination against people with criminal records, it may be helpful to examine how
Stages in a Capital Case from http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/ Note that not every case goes through all of the steps outlined here. Some states have different procedures. I. Pre-Trial Crimes that would
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC14-759 THE FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE: J.R.B. [November 20, 2014] PER CURIAM. The Florida Board of Bar Examiners ( Board ) has filed a Report and Recommendation regarding
Chapter Five CRIMINAL LAW AND VICTIMS RIGHTS In a criminal case, a prosecuting attorney (working for the city, state, or federal government) decides if charges should be brought against the perpetrator.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ALI BOSTON Appellant No. 549 EDA 2012 Appeal from the PCRA Order
Frequently Asked Questions: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Juvenile Delinquency Adjudications and Records 1 Q: What is juvenile delinquency? A: Juvenile delinquency refers to the process
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED May 16, 2007 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the
IN THE MATTER OF : NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THE APPLICATION FOR : STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS CERTIFICATION AFTER : REVOCATION : DOCKET NO. 0809-104 OF : NICHOLAS ARMINIO : : At its meeting of September
SYLLABUS (This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 41435 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANDREY SERGEYEVICH YERMOLA, Defendant-Appellant. 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 348 Filed: February
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2013 WI 36 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Joseph M. Engl, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Joseph M.
DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS This pamphlet has been provided to help you better understand the federal
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-07475 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esq., Department
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS DAVID MORALES, Appellant, V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. O P I N I O N No. 08-05-00201-CR Appeal from the 409th District Court of El Paso County,
System Overview ~~~~~ Presented by: Darcie McElwee SYSTEM OVERVIEW OBJECTIVES Upon conclusion of this module the participant will be able to: Describe the overall structure, case flow process, and roles
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2003-KA-01700-COA TOMMY BANKS A/K/A TOMMY EARL BANKS (HARRY) APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: 5/27/2003 TRIAL
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2014 WI 48 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Geneva E. McKinley, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Geneva
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A13-1856 Original Jurisdiction Per Curiam In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against A.B., a Minnesota Attorney, Panel Case No. 35121 Filed: October 8, 2014 Office
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF MICHIGAN S ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE SYSTEM HISTORY Michigan s system for attorney discipline has existed in its current form since 1978. With the creation of the State Bar of Michigan
CHARLES EDWARD DAVIS, Applicant-Appellant, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 14-0420 Filed May 20, 2015 STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County,
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT STATE OF MISSOURI, v. ROBERT E. WHEELER, Respondent, Appellant. WD76448 OPINION FILED: August 19, 2014 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Caldwell County,
Filed 11/24/15 P. v. Faccone CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
RENDERED: MARCH 14, 2008; 2:00 P.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2007-CA-001304-MR DONALD T. CHRISTY APPELLANT v. APPEAL FROM MASON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE STOCKTON
Litigation Update by Fred P. Parker III and Brad Gilbert Cases Reported Bar Examination Cheating; permanent denial of application In re Rojas, 929 So. 2d 1229, 2004-1819 (La. 2006) Character and Fitness
Boyle v. People, Case No. 02PDJ067, June 16, 2004, nunc pro tunc May12, 2004. Attorney Regulation. Daniel F. Boyle, attorney registration no. 07152, was reinstated to the practice of law following a full
November 12 2009 DA 09-0067 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2009 MT 387 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LISA MARIE LEPROWSE, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court
Office of the Attorney General Information for Crime Victims and Witnesses MARCH 2009 LAWRENCE WASDEN Attorney General Criminal Law Division Special Prosecutions Unit Telephone: (208) 332-3096 Fax: (208)
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. VI ANN SPENCER, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0804 Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. V1300CR201280372 The Honorable
Filed 9/25/96 PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-3409 GERALD T. CECIL, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Case 1:07-cv-00039-PGC Document 12 Filed 07/20/07 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION JOE R. ALVARADO, Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
Georgia Council of Probate Court Judges Weapons Carry License Broad Overview FAQ Prepared by Probate Judges Lynwood D. Jordan, Jr., and William J. Self, II, with input from clerks and judges June 21, 2010
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. No. 1 CA-SA 12-0201 WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, DEPARTMENT A Petitioner, Maricopa County Superior Court
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc DENNIS WAYNE CANION, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CV-04-0243-PR Petitioner, ) ) Court of Appeals v. ) Division One ) No. 1 CA-SA 04-0036 THE HONORABLE DAVID R. COLE, )
Senate Engrossed State of Arizona Senate Forty-fifth Legislature First Regular Session 0 SENATE BILL AN ACT AMENDING SECTION -, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED BY LAWS 00, CHAPTER, SECTION ; AMENDING
California Judges Association OPINION NO. 56 (Issued: August 29, 2006) ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN A JUDGE OR A MEMBER OF A JUDGE S FAMILY HAS BEEN ARRESTED OR IS BEING PROSECUTED FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In re Application of Swendiman, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-2813.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-IA-02028-SCT RENE C. LEVARIO v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/23/2010 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT P. KREBS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JACKSON COUNTY
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0675n.06 No. 14-6537 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TERELL BUFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CP-00221-COA FREDDIE LEE MARTIN A/K/A FREDDIE L. MARTIN APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/08/2013 TRIAL JUDGE: