State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Denton

1979 OK 116, 598 P.2d 663, 1979 Okla. LEXIS 325
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJuly 24, 1979
DocketS.C.B.D. 2720
StatusPublished
Cited by56 cases

This text of 1979 OK 116 (State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Denton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Denton, 1979 OK 116, 598 P.2d 663, 1979 Okla. LEXIS 325 (Okla. 1979).

Opinions

DOOLIN, Justice:

Article X, § 4(b) of the Rules of the Oklahoma Bar Association 1 provides that:

“A member of the association who has been convicted in any jurisdiction of a crime involving moral turpitude regardless of whether conviction resulted from a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or from a verdict after trial, shall be subject to discipline as herein provided, regardless of the pendency of an appeal.”

Respondent pleaded guilty in Kay County, Oklahoma, to two charges, one involving unlawful possession of amphetamines and one involving unlawful possession of marijuana. Sentence was deferred on the amphetamine charge and he was placed on probation without supervision for one year. That probation time expired in August of 1978, the case was dismissed by operation of law and his plea of guilty was expunged from the record. Because the expungement was prior to the date of the disciplinary proceeding, the trial authority found his plea could not be used against him by the Oklahoma Bar Association.2

The sentence on the charge of unlawful possession of marijuana was similarly deferred. However his probation time on this charge was two years and does not expire until August 1979. On this basis, that of the conviction of possession of marijuana alone, the trial authority found respondent to have pleaded guilty to a crime of moral turpitude and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.

The issue for decision by this Court is whether such recommendation should be approved. We are not bound by the trial authority’s recommendation but may take any action which we deem appropriate.3 Respondent pleaded guilty to a misdemean- or involving possession only. Does this involve moral turpitude and thus require discipline?

This court in State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Jones, 566 P.2d 130 (Okl.1977) attempted to delineate the elements of moral turpitude. We stated moral turpitude implies something immoral in itself regardless of fact of whether it is punishable by law. Important elements are intent and knowledge. There can be no question under the conviction respondent is accountable [665]*665for intent to possess the marijuana and knowledge that such possession is illegal. Moral turpitude is admittedly an elusive concept incapable of precise definition. Its definition may change with the times and vary from community to community.4

In Oklahoma, the primary purpose of discipline is not punishment, but purification of the bar and protection of the courts and the public generally. But this is not the sole purpose for discipline. It must also serve to deter respondent from committing similar acts in the future and it further acts as a restraining influence on other attorneys.5

We hold respondent’s wilful misconduct in violation of the law of Oklahoma is a crime of moral turpitude under the definition of State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Jones, supra. Thus he is subject to discipline under Rule 4(b).

A first time offender charged with unlawful possession of marijuana (a misdemeanor) has an opportunity to have his conviction expunged from the record.6 Respondent’s crime will be expunged by operation of law in August of 1979 if he meets the requirements of his probation. Although respondent must be disciplined, we believe a suspension for the length of his probation is adequate warning that this court does not condone such acts. This court has discretion in determining appropriate discipline.7 It is therefore ordered David 0. Denton be suspended until the date his deferred sentence is completed.

LAVENDER, C. J., and WILLIAMS, HODGES, BARNES and HARGRAVE, JJ., concur. IRWIN, V. C. J., and OPALA, J., dissent. SIMMS, J., concurs in result.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. SHYERS
2023 OK 20 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2023)
BALES v. STATE ex rel. OKLA. REAL ESTATE APPRAISER BOARD
492 P.3d 625 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2020)
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Aston
2003 OK 101 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2003)
Ballard v. Independent School District No. 4 of Bryan County
2003 OK 76 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2003)
STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. Seratt
2003 OK 22 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2003)
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wagener
2002 OK 4 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2002)
In Re of Lock
54 S.W.3d 305 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Dershem
2001 OK 7 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2001)
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Tully
2000 OK 93 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2000)
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Southern
2000 OK 88 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2000)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Blackburn
1999 OK 17 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1999)
STATE EX REL. OK. BAR ASS'N v. Blackburn
1999 OK 17 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1999)
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Andre
1998 OK 29 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1998)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Miskovsky
1997 OK 55 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1997)
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Eakin
914 P.2d 644 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1995)
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Thomas
886 P.2d 477 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1994)
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bolton
1994 OK 53 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1994)
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Evans
1994 OK 45 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1994)
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Carpenter
1993 OK 86 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1993)
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Busch
1993 OK 72 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1979 OK 116, 598 P.2d 663, 1979 Okla. LEXIS 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-oklahoma-bar-assn-v-denton-okla-1979.