Case Number(s): 11-C-14359-RAH
In the Matter of: Tyler Patrick Nixon, Bar # 220423 , A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Jessica A. Lienau, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Bar # 269753
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Tyler Patrick Nixon
905 N. Van Buren Street
Wilmington, DE 19806
Bar # 220423
Submitted to: Assigned Judge at State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: January 13, 2012
<<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 July 18, 2002.
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 10 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):
checked. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: the two (2) membership years following the effective date of this order. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
<<not>> checked. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. Costs are entirely waived.
Respondent has been a member of the State Bar of California for more than nine (9) years with no prior record of discipline.
Respondent has chosen to enter into a stipulation with the State Bar as early as possible.
IN THE MATTER OF: TYLER PATRICK NIXON
CASE NUMBER(S): 1 l-C- 14359-RAH
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.
Case No. 1 l-C- 14359 (Conviction Proceedings)
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN CONVICTION PROCEEDING:
1. This is a proceeding pursuant to sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 9.10 of the California Rules of Court.
2. On August 4, 2011, Respondent was convicted of violating Title 16 of the Delaware Code § 4754, Possession of a Non-Narcotic Schedule 1 Controlled Substance, specifically marijuana and ecstasy, misdemeanors, and Title 16 of the Delaware Code § 4771, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a misdemeanor.
3. On November 8, 2011, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department on the following issues:
FACTS:
4. On January 10, 2011, Delaware State Police Corporal Robert Cassidy and members of the Delaware State Police Drug Unit executed a search warrant on Respondent’s residence/home office, located in the State of Delaware. A total of 453.8 grams of marijuana was found and 57 MDMA (commonly known as "ecstasy") pills were found. A bong with marijuana residue was also located 11 pipes with marijuana residue were located.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
5. Respondent’s misdemeanor convictions, discussed supra., did not involve moral turpitude but did involve other misconduct warranting discipline.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Respondent is a U.S. Army Infantry veteran with active-duty enlisted service overseas, including combat duty in 1991 on deployment to the northern Iraqi border while serving in a rifle company in the U.S. Army Berlin Brigade (Germany). Following active-duty Infantry enlistment, Respondent served in the 11th Special Forces Group (Airborne) on reserve duty until being commissioned as an Army officer upon graduation from Georgetown University in 1995. Respondent subsequently became an Army
National Guard officer, serving as a platoon leader and eventually a detachment commander. In March 2005, Respondent received an Honorable Discharge as a Captain.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was December 2, 2011.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.3, Title IV, Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, provides that the primary purposes of the disciplinary system are: "the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession."
Standard 3.4 provides that "Final conviction of a member of a crime which does not involve moral turpitude inherently or in the facts and circumstances surrounding the Crime’s commission but which does involve other misconduct warranting discipline shall result in a sanction as prescribed under part B of these standards appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct found to have been committed by the member."
Although there is no case law specifically addressing possession of a controlled substance, there is case law addressing possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute as well as case law addressing criminal convictions not involving moral turpitude. In light of these two lines of case law, a one year stayed suspension with two years of probation and probationary conditions is an appropriate level of discipline for Respondent.
In the Matter of Carr (1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 108, the respondent received three criminal convictions, not involving moral turpitude, consisting of an August 1985 conviction for driving with a suspended license due to a prior DUI conviction, a January 1986 conviction for being under the influence of PCP, and an August 1986 conviction for driving with knowledge of a suspended license. The Review Department recommended discipline consisting of a two year stayed suspension, two years probation with conditions including a six month actual suspension and until the respondent complies with standard 1.4(c)(ii). In aggravation, the respondent had a record of prior discipline, including a 1984 actual suspension of 60 days for two drug convictions in 1981 and 1982, a probation revocation matter in 1986, and six months actual suspension until 1.4(c)(ii) hearing in 1988 for two DUI convictions in 1983 and 1984. The respondent had been under continuous suspension for five years. In mitigation, the respondent had not had any arrests since 1986 until the time of the State Bar hearing in 1989, he had a valid driver’s license at that time, and he had completed a chemical dependency program.
In In re Kreamer, 14 Cal. 3d at 532, the Supreme Court of California held that three years of suspension, stayed, was adequate discipline of an attorney who pled guilty to the offenses of possessing marijuana and conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. The Court noted as mitigating factors that the respondent did not have any prior discipline over the course of approximately ten years that the respondent’s involvement in the marijuana offenses was motivated by a financial crisis and occurred during a time of emotional crisis when the respondent had in essence ceased practicing law. (Id. at 531 .) The Court also noted that the respondent’s post-conviction rehabilitative efforts that were attested to be several members of his community. (Id.) The Court gave the respondent mitigation credit for having been candid and cooperative with t-he State Bar and the courts throughout the disciplinary
proceedings. (Id.) In closing, the Court stated that the respondent "has already ’suffered the ignominy of a criminal conviction, (and) has served time in a penal institution and on parole ... ’". (Id at 532 (internal citation omitted).)
In the instant case, the Respondent’s misconduct was less serious than that of the respondents in the aforementioned cases. Respondent was convicted of possession of controlled substances. Respondent was not convicted of intent to distribute these controlled substances. Respondent has no prior record of discipline.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of December 2, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,287.00. 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.
Case Number(s): 11-C-14359-RAH
In the Matter of: Tyler Patrick Nixon
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: Tyler Patrick Nixon and Jessica A. Lienau
Respondent: Tyler Patrick Nixon
Date: December 15, 2011
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Jessica A. Lienau
Date: December 21, 2011
Case Number(s): 11-C-14359-RAH
In the Matter of: Tyler Patrick Nixon
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:
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
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 5.58 (E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn
Date: 1-10-12
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); 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 January 24, 2012, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND
ORDER APPROVING
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
TYLER P. NIXON
905 NORTH VAN BUREN STREET
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19806 - 4536
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Jessica A. Lienau, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in, California, on January 12, 2012.
Signed by:
Cristina Potter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court