Case Number(s): 11-C-14410-LMA
In the Matter of: Eric Valentin Castellon, Bar # not listed, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Heather E. Abelson, Deputy Trial Counsel
180 Howard Strut
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 538-2357
Bar #243691,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
Eric Valentin Castellon
PO Box 8859
Fresno, CA 93747
PUBLIC MATTER
(559) 709-8131
Bar # 272048
Submitted to: Assigned Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
Filed: January 23, 2013
<<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 December 1, 2010.
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 11 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 (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: . (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.
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.
Case Number(s):
In the Matter of:
<<not>> checked. a. Respondent must abstain from use of any alcoholic beverages, and shall not use or possess any narcotics, dangerous or restricted drugs, controlled substances, marijuana, or associated paraphernalia, except with a valid prescription.
<<not>> checked. b. Respondent must attend at least meetings per month of:
<<not>> checked. Alcoholics Anonymous
<<not>> checked. Narcotics Anonymous
<<not>> checked. The Other Bar
<<not>> checked. Other program
As a separate reporting requirement, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance during each month, on or before the tenth (10th) day of the following month, during the condition or probation period.
<<not>> checked. c. Respondent must select a license medical laboratory approved by the Office of Probation. Respondent must furnish to the laboratory blood and/or urine samples as may be required to show that Respondent has abstained from alcohol and/or drugs. The samples must be furnished to the laboratory in such a manner as may be specified by the laboratory to ensure specimen integrity. Respondent must cause the laboratory to provide to the Office of Probation, at the Respondent’s expense, a screening report on or before the tenth day of each month of the condition or probation period, containing an analysis of Respondent’s blood and/or urine obtained not more than ten (10) days previously.
<<not>> checked. d. Respondent must maintain with the Office of Probation a current address and a current telephone number at which Respondent can be reached. Respondent must return any call from the Office of Probation concerning testing of Respondent’s blood or urine within twelve (12) hours. For good cause, the Office of Probation may require Respondent to deliver Respondent’s urine and/or blood sample(s) for additional reports to the laboratory described above no later than six hours after actual notice to Respondent that the Office of Probation requires an additional screening report.
<<not>> checked. e. Upon the request of the Office of Probation, Respondent must provide the Office of Probation with medical waivers and access to all of Respondent’s medical records. Revocation of any medical waiver is a violation of this condition. Any medical records obtained by the Office of Probation are confidential and no information concerning them or their contents will be given to anyone except members of the Office of Probation, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, and the State Bar Court who are directly involved with maintaining, enforcing or adjudicating this condition.
Other:
IN THE MATTER OF: ERIC VALENTIN CASTELLON
CASE NUMBER(S): 11-C-14410-LMA
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. 11-C-144.!0-LA (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 June 28, 201 I, Respondent was convicted of violating California Vehicle Code, section 23152C0) - Driving With a .08% or Higher Blood Alcohol Level.
3. On December t4, 2012, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued an order referring the matter to the Hearing Department for a hearing and decision recommending the discipline
to be imposed in the event that the Hearing Department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense(s) for which Respondent was convicted involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
FACTS:
4. On June 28, 2011, following an April 5,2011 arrest, Respondent entered a plea of no contest to Count 1 of a Complaint filed in Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. M11916238, which charged Respondent with a violation of California Vehicle Code Section 2315200) - Driving While Having a .08% or Higher Blood Alcohol. Respondent also admired that he had been convicted of violating California Vehicle Code Section 23152(b) on July 1, 2004 h Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. T04902770-7.
5. On June 28, 2011, the court sentenced Respondent to 16 days in jail and a three-year conditional sentence probation. Respondent was also ordered to pay fines and fees and attend the County’s Multiple Offender Alcohol Program for a period of 18 months.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
6. The facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s misdemeanor violation of California Vehicle Code section 23152Co), including the fact that Respondent was previously convicted of the same offense, do not involve moral turpitude, but do involve conduct warranting discipline.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Pre-trial Stipulation: Respondent is entitled to mitigation for entering into a full stipulation with the Office of Chief Trial Counsel prior to trial, thereby saving State Bar Court time and resources. (In the Matter of Doney (Review Dept, 2009) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Pptr. 151,156; In the Matter of Van Sickle (Review Dept, 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980, 993-994).
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct provide a process of fixing discipline pursuant to a set of written principles to "better discharge the purposes of attorney discipline as annotated by the Supreme Court." (Rules Prec. of State Bar, tit. IV, Stds. for Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, Introduction (all further reference to standards are to this source),) The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings and of the sanctions imposed 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." (In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 205; std 1.3.)
Although not binding, the standards are entitled to "great weight" and should be followed "whenever possible" in determining. level of discipline. (In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4 81, 92, quoting In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4 205, 220 and In re Young (1989.) 49 Cal.3d 257, 267, fn. 11.) Adherence to the standards in the great majority of cases serves the valuable purpose of eliminating disparity and assuring consistency, that is, the imposition of similar attorney discipline for instances of similar attorney misconduct. (In re Nancy (1990) 51 Cal.3d 186, 190.) Any discipline recommendation different from
that set forth in the applicable standards should clearly explain the reasons for the deviation. (Blair v, State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 762, 776, fn. 5.)
Standards 3.4 and 2.10 are applicable in this matter. 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." Standard 2.10, which serves as a catchall for misconduct that is not covered by any other Standard, states that the appropriate level of discipline for such misconduct is a "reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3." Standard !.3 states that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings by the State Bar are "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."
Here, Respondent’s conduct warrants a public reproval. Respondent was twice convicted of driving while intoxicated. Although such offenses do not involve moral turpitude, these convictions warrant discipline. See e.g., In re Kelley (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 487 (finding that a second and subsequent DUI conviction warranted discipline). The fact that Respondent’s first conviction predates his admission to the State Bar is irrelevant because his second DUI conviction amounts to repeat conduct which raises a question as to Respondent’s judgment and fitness to practice law. See e.g., Stratraore v. State Bar (1975) !4 Cal. 3d. 877, 890-891 (considering misconduct which occurred prior to admission to the State
Bar because the court’s overriding concern is to assure an attorney’s fitness to practice). Because the applicable Standard does not set forth a specific level of discipline to be imposed, applicable case law should be considered. In Kelley, respondent was convicted of a second DUI. 52 Cal.3d at 491-492. The second conviction triggered Kelley’s first disciplinary proceeding with the State Bat’. Id, at 492,
The court found that her conduct did not involve moral turpitude, but that her "repeated criminal conduct calls into question her judgment and fitness to practice law in the absence of disciplinary conditions designed to prevent recurrence of such conduct." ld. at 490-491. The Supreme Court found substantial mitigation including no prior discipline, cooperation throughout the disciplinary proceeding and extensive involvement in community service. Id. at 498. The Supreme Court held that a public reproval, referral, to the Alcohol Abuse Program, and three year probation was sufficient discipline to protect the public. Id. at 499.
Here, Respondent, like Kelley, was convicted of two DUI offenses. Unlike Kelley, Respondent is entitled to no mitigation for his lack era prior record of discipline because he was only admitted to practice in December 2010, less than two years prior to the filing of the State Bar disciplinary proceedings. See e.g., In the Matter of Aguil (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 32, 44 (seven years of no prior discipline worth only slight mitigation); Kelly ,, State Bar 0988) 45 Cal. 3d, 649, 657 (7.5 years not especially commendable). Respondent is entitled to mitigation for cooperating with the State Bar during the disciplinary process and entering into a pre-trial stipulation. Respondent has offered no evidence of any community service involvement, or other possible mitigation.
Based on the Standards Kelley, Respondent’s conduct warrants a public reproval and two year probation with standard conditions.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(7), was January 15, 2013.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of January 15, 2013, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,343.00. 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.
EXCLUSION FROM MCLE CREDIT
Pursuant to rule 3201, Respondent may not receive MCLE credit for completion of State Bar Ethics School. (Rules Prec. of State Bar, role 3201,)
Case Number(s): 11-C-14410-LMA
In the Matter of: Eric Valentin Castellon
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: Eric Valentin Castellon
Date: 1-16-13
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Heather E. Abelson
Date: 1-22-13
Case Number(s): 11-C-14410-LMA
In the Matter of: Eric Valentin Castellon
Finding that the stipulation protects the public and that the interests of Respondent will be served by any conditions attached to the reproval, 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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the REPROVAL IMPOSED.
checked. All court dates in the Hearing Department 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 135(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 may 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: Lucy Armendariz
Date: January 23, 2013
[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 San Francisco on January 23, 2013, 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:
checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
ERIC V. CASTELLON
PO BOX 8859
FRESNO, CA 93747
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
HEATHER E. ABELSON, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on January 23, 2013.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O.Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court\