Watkins v. Real Estate Commissioner

DRAPER, J.

Is conviction of felony, without a showing that the felony involves moral turpitude, sufficient ground for revocation of the license of a real estate broker! That is the principal question presented by this case.

Respondent Watkins was convicted of three counts of violation of the Corporate Securities Act (Corp. Code, §§ 26104, subd. (d), 26104, subd. (f). One conviction was by jury verdict, and two by plea. Appellant Real Estate Commissioner then filed an accusation against Watkins, asserting nine grounds of disciplinary action. Only those based upon the three convictions, without assertion of moral turpitude, are here material. Records of the three judgments were presented to the hearing officer, without any evidence to indicate whether the crimes involved moral turpitude. That officer found against Watkins on each ground of the accusation, and recommended revocation of this license on each ground separately. The commissioner adopted this recommendation and ordered revocation. Watkins brought this proceeding in mandamus, and the trial court directed that the commissioner’s order be vacated and the matter remanded for further administrative proceedings. The commissioner appeals.

Section 10177 of the Business and Professions Code provides :

“The commissioner may suspend or revoke the license of any real estate licensee who has done any of the following: . . .

“(b) Entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to, or been found guilty of, or been convicted of, a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude....”

Violation of the Corporate Securities Act does not necessarily involve moral turpitude

(In re Hatch,

10 Cal.2d 147 [73 P.2d 885]). Thus the issue is whether the phrase “involving moral turpitude” modifies only the words “a crime,” or applies to the entire phrase “felony or a crime.” Since the parties do not question that the crimes here are felonies, the only problem before us is whether guilt of any felony, irrespective of moral turpitude, is a ground for revoca

[399]

tion of a real estate license. This precise question has not been determined, although analogous statutes have been construed.