In Re Richardson

California Supreme Court May 27, 1940 No. Crim. 4277Published

Before: Shenk

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that because the record of conviction for conspiracy to violate the Securities Act did not conclusively establish moral turpitude on its face, the matter must be referred to the State Bar for investigation and recommendation.

Issues

Whether a conviction for conspiracy to violate the Securities Act involves moral turpitude as a matter of law based solely on the record of conviction.
Whether the court may refer a disciplinary matter to the State Bar for investigation when the record of conviction is ambiguous regarding moral turpitude.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“That question in the present matter appears to be one for investigation and recommendation by the State Bar.”

[537]

SHENK, J.

On October 28, 1939, the State Bar of California caused to be filed in this court a certified copy of the record of conviction of Jerome Lyman Richardson, in an action numbered 27812 in the District Court of the United States, in and for the Northern District of New York, entitled,

“The United States of America

John L. Etheridge and Jerome Lyman Richardson.”

On November 8, 1939, pursuant to section 6102 of the Business and Professions Code (formerly section 299 of the Code of Civil Procedure), this court filed an order that Jerome Lyman Richardson, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, be removed from his office as an attorney at law in this state. The order was based upon the purported showing that the petitioner was “convicted on a plea of guilty to count XI of the indictment, charging use of United States mails to defraud, in action numbered . . . 27812“ in said United States District Court.

On petition for rehearing, the petitioner contended that he was not convicted of a charge of using the United States mails to defraud; that count XI of the indictment charged a violation of section 88, Title 18, United States Code, namely, a conspiracy to violate “section 338, Title 18, United States Code, by using and causing the use of the United States mails in furtherance of a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to violate section 77 (q) (a) (1), Title 15, United States Code, by employing a scheme and artifice to defraud in the business of selling and offering to sell securities by use of the means of transportation and communication in interstate commerce, and by use of the mails, in the manner and by the means hereinafter described.” It is now disclosed that the petitioner’s plea of guilty went only to the portion of count XI alleging conspiracy to violate said section 77 (q) (a) (1) of the Securities Act. The record also shows that the petitioner paid the fine of $500, which was the full penalty imposed.

The petition for rehearing was granted on the showing that the record filed and the subsequent order of this court based thereon were inaccurate as to the statement of the offense to which the petitioner had entered a plea of guilty. Later the petitioner presented a certified copy of an order of the court in New York, made and entered on November 22,1939, amending its judgment in said action to conform to the plea and reading as follows:

In Re Richardson

AI Brief

SHENK, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief