Case Number(s): 05-C-04403
In the Matter of: Douglas Miranda, Bar # 236821, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Melanie J. Lawrence, Bar # 230102
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: Assigned Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: March 6, 2007
<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted June 1, 2005.
2. The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law or disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court.
3. All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals." The stipulation consists of 9 pages, not including the order.
4. A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts."
5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".
6. The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."
7. No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
8. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):
<<not>> checked. costs added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: two billing cycles following the effective date of the final order. (hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.)
<<not>> checked. costs waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. costs entirely waived.
9. The parties understand that:
<<not>> checked. (a) A private reproval imposed on a respondent as a result of a stipulation approved by the Court prior to initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, but is not disclosed in response to public inquiries and is not reported on the State Bar’s web page. The record of the proceeding in which such a private reproval was imposed is not available to the public except as part of the record of any subsequent proceeding in which it is introduced as evidence of a prior record of discipline under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.
<<not>> checked. (b) A private reproval imposed on a respondent after initiation of a State Bar Court proceeding is part of the respondent’s official State Bar Membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
checked. (c) A public reproval imposed on a respondent is publicly available as part of the respondent’s official State Bar membership records, is disclosed in response to public inquiries and is reported as a record of public discipline on the State Bar’s web page.
IN THE MATTER OF: DOUGLAS MIRANDA
CASE NUMBER(S): 05-C-04403
A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING.
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 951 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On March 30, 2006, respondent was convicted of violating Vehicle Code § 20002(a), Hit & Run with Property Damage.
3. On August 10, 2006, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department limited to whether the facts and circumstances surrounding the offenses involve moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
4. On September 8, 2006 the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an augmented order to include a hearing and decision recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event the Hearing Department finds that the facts and circumstances of respondent’s offense involve moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
B. FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts:
5. On August 7, 2005, at approximately 2:55 a.m., respondent, while driving his 2005 Corvette, lost control of the vehicle and struck a brick wall owned by Virginia Lucas in the city of Placentia.
6. The wall was damaged by the impact of the collision.
7. Respondent then drove his damaged vehicle from the scene of the accident.
8. Respondent did not locate and notify Virginia Lucas of his name and address. Nor did he, at Virginia Lucas’ request, present his driver’s license and vehicle registration, and current residence address to her.
9. Respondent did not leave, in a conspicuous place, on the property damaged in the collision, a written notice giving his name and address and the circumstances of the collision.
10. Respondent did not notify the police department in the city of Placentia that a collision had occurred.
11. On March 30, 2006, respondent pled guilty to violation of Vehicle Code § 20002(a), Hit & Run with Property Damage, a misdemeanor, in Orange County Superior Court.
Conclusions of Law:
By failing to locate and notify the owner of the property he damaged; failing to present his driver’s license, vehicle registration, and current address to her or; failing to leave a written notice giving his name and address and the circumstances of the collision on the property he damaged and; failing to notify the police department in the city of Placentia that a collision had occurred, he committed acts of other misconduct warranting discipline.
C. AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standards:
Conviction of a crime which does not involve moral turpitude, but does involve other misconduct warranting discipline shall result in a sanction prescribed under part B of the standards appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct. (Std. 3.4)
Under part B, offenses involving a violation for which the level of discipline is not otherwise specified shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard for the purposes of imposing discipline. (Std. 2.10)
Case Law:
In In re Kelley (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 487, an attorney received a public reproval for her second drunk driving conviction that also violated conditions of criminal probation for the first offense. A police officer pulled her over and asked whether she had been drinking. (Id. at 491.) She said she had not. (Id.) After having her exit the car, the officer asked her to submit to a field sobriety test. (Id.) Kelley refused, sat down on the curb, and attempted to enter into a conversation with the officer about his family, telling him she was an old family friend. (Id.)When the officer refused to sustain the conversation, Kelley became agitated and accused him of arresting her because of a personal grievance against her ex-husband. (Id.) The officer eventually summoned a second officer for assistance. (Id.) The court noted that in addition to the conviction evidencing an alcohol problem, Kelley’s conduct demonstrated a "lack of respect for the legal system." (Id. at 496.) But, Kelley’s conviction was not moral turpitude per se and the facts and circumstances did not amount to moral turpitude. Rather, her conviction amounted to "other misconduct warranting discipline." (!d. at 494.)
D. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Respondent has cooperated with the State Bar during these proceedings. (Std. 1.2(e)(v).)
E. COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of February 15, 2007, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $3,530. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it does not include State Bar Court costs which will be included in any final cost assessment. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-C-04403
In the Matter of: Douglas Miranda
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the recitation and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition.
Signed by:
Respondent: Douglas Miranda
Date: 2/20/07
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Melanie J. Lawrence
Date: 2/26/07
Case Number(s): 05-C-04403
In the Matter of: Douglas Miranda
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any, is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AND THE REPROVAL IMPOSED.
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department are vacated.
Page 7- Conclusions of Law: At the end of the last sentence – insert the following: “In violation of Business and Professional Code § 6068(a).”
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 125(b), Rules of Procedure.) Otherwise the stipulation shall be effective 15 days after service of this order.
Failure to comply with any conditions attached to this reproval man constitute cause for a separate proceeding for willful breach of rule 1-110, Rules of Professional Conduct.
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Platel
Date: 03-01-07
[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County of Los Angeles, on , I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING PUBLIC REPROVAL
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
DOUGLAS MIRANDA
82975 US HIGHWAY 111 RM 314
INDIO, CA 92201
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
MELANIE J. LAWRENCE, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on March 6, 2007.
Signed by:
Tammy R. Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court