Case Number(s): 12-C-15307-DFM
In the Matter of: KRISHNA GENE HANEY, Bar #229652 A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: KELSEY J. BLEVINGS, DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL
1149 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Tel. (213) 765-1209
Bar #271271
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per Respondent
KRISHNA GENE HANEY
3958 Riviera Dr., Apt. A
San Diego, CA 92109
Tel. (619) 993-6469
Bar #229652
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: June 4, 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 17, 2003.
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 12 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 are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline (public reproval).
<<not>> checked. Case ineligible for costs (private reproval).
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: three billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court 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.
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): 12-C-15307-DFM
In the Matter of: Krishna Gene Haney
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.
checked. b. Respondent must attend at least 2 meetings per month of:
<<not>> checked. Alcoholics Anonymous
<<not>> checked. Narcotics Anonymous
<<not>> checked. The Other Bar
checked. Other program Respondent shall attend at least two (2) meetings per month of an abstinence-based self-help group of her own choosing, including inter alia, Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, LifeRing, S.M.A.R.T, S.O.S. Other self-help maintenance programs are acceptable if they include: (i) a subculture to support recovery (meetings); and (ii) a process of personal development that does not have financial barriers. (See O’Conner v. California (1994), 855 F. Supp. 303 [no first amendment violation where probationer given choice between AA and secular program].) The program called "Moderation Management" is not acceptable because it allows the participant to continue consuming alcohol.
Before Respondent attends the first self help group meeting, she shall contact the Office of Probation and obtain approval for the program that she has selected. Thereafter, on a quarterly basis with her quarterly and final written reports, Respondent shall provide documentary proof of attendance at the meetings of the approved program to the Office of Probation, in a form acceptable to the Office of Probation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: The two (2) meetings per month of an abstinence-based self-help group shall be in addition to any drug rehabilitation program or substance abuse counseling ordered as a term of probation in Respondent’s criminal case.
IN THE MATTER OF: KRISHNA GENE HANEY
CASE NUMBER: 12-C-15307-DFM
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts and circumstances surrounding her conviction are true and do not involve moral turpitude but do involve other misconduct warranting discipline:
Case No. 12-C- 15307-DFM (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 July 16, 2012, Respondent was convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) [driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs] and Health and Safety Code section 11550 [being under the influence of a controlled substance, to wit: hydrocod0ne].
3. On September 13, 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 17, 2011, as Respondent was driving eastbound on Interstate 8 in San Diego County, she crossed onto the shoulder of the roadway and struck an emergency call box. Respondent’s vehicle sustained moderate damage including a shattered passenger-side window, a broken side view mirror, and a scraped and dented door. After colliding with the call box, Respondent drove to a nearby gas station. As she exited her vehicle, a witness noticed Respondent had glass in her hair and cuts to her nose and right hand. Respondent approached the witness and asked him for money to buy gas. As she approached, the witness noticed she had an unsteady gait. The witness indicated he was going to call 911 because it appeared Respondent needed help. Respondent pleaded with the witness not to call 911 because she was afraid. She stated she did not have money for health insurance, auto insurance, and was
afraid that her car would be impounded. Nevertheless, the witness called 911. Respondent sat on a nearby curb until paramedics arrived and transported her to hospital.
5. A short time later, California Highway Patrol ("CHP") officers contacted Respondent at the hospital. Respondent admitted she was in a traffic collision but could not explain any of the details other than she was driving and hit something. Respondent also stated that she was having a panic attack at the time of the collision which caused temporary blindness. When questioned about her sobriety, Respondent admitted consuming the following narcotics earlier in the day: Clonezepam 4mg [a central nervous system ("CNS") depressant known to impair driving ability], Cymbalta 60mg [a CNS depressant which may impair driving ability, especially when combined with another CNS depressant], Flexeril 10mg [a CSN depressant which may impair driving ability, especially when combined with another CNS depressant], and an unspecified amount of hydrocodone [a narcotic analgesic widely known to impair driving ability]. Respondent explained that she needed the drugs because of pain she still suffers from a 2008 ankle injury which required multiple reconstructive surgeries and because she experiences panic attacks.
6. While at the hospital, Respondent tested negative for the presence of alcohol.
7. On October 10, 2011, in San Diego County Superior Court case no. M139552, Respondent was charged by criminal complaint with violating Vehicle Code section 23152(a) [driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs], Vehicle Code section 20002 [hit-and-run driving causing property damage], and Health and Safety Code section 11550 [being under the influence a controlled substance, to wit: hydrocodone]. The complaint also alleged that Respondent had committed a prior alcohol-related driving offense within the previous ten years, and had been convicted thereof, within the meaning of Vehicle Code section 23540.
8. On July 16, 2012, Respondent pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of drugs and being under the influence of hydrocodone. Pursuant to plea agreement, the hit-and-run driving charge was dismissed and the allegation that Respondent had committed a prior alcohol-related driving offense was struck. Imposition of sentence was suspended for five years pending successful completion of probation. Among other conditions of her probation, Respondent was ordered to serve 90 days in custody. However, the order was stayed pending successful completion of a 90-day drug treatment program. Additionally, Respondent was ordered to complete ten days of public work service, pay restitution to CalTrans for the damaged call box, pay approximately $2,000 in fines, and complete an 18-month multiple-offender impaired driver program.
9. Respondent committed a prior alcohol-related driving offense on October 5, 2001, for which she was convicted on November 5,2001. Her blood-alcohol concentration at the time of the offense was 0.14 percent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
10. The facts and circumstances surrounding the above-described violation(s) do not involve moral turpitude but do involve other misconduct warranting discipline.
ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
No Prior Discipline: Although her misconduct was serious, Respondent has no record of discipline since her admission to the State Bar of California in 2003. (See In the Matter of Riordan (Review Dept. 2007) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rprt. 41, 49 [where mitigative credit was given for long period of discipline-free practice despite serious misconduct].)
Pretrial Stipulation: Respondent has voluntarily entered into this stipulation. (See Silva-Vidor v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1071, 1079 [where mitigative credit was given for entering into a stipulation as to facts and culpability].)
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 announced by the Supreme Court." (Rules Proc. of State Bar, tit. IV, Stds. for Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, Introduction (all further references 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.4th 81, 92, quoting In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 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.)
Under standard 3.4, final conviction of an attorney 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 the standards and appropriate to the nature and extent of the misconduct. Standard 2.10, included under Part B, provides that a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in the
standards or of a wilful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in the standards shall result in 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.
Here, Respondent was convicted of driving under the influence of drugs as well as being under the influence of a controlled substance. Respondent’s misconduct is serious because driving under the influence of drugs poses a danger to the public. In fact, Respondent struck an emergency call box and sustained injuries requiring immediate medical attention. Then, unaware of what she had collided with, Respondent left the scene with the intention of not reporting the collision for fear of the criminal and financial consequences. Further, this was Respondent’s second driving under the influence offense since 2001. In mitigation, Respondent has no prior record of discipline since being admitted to the State Bar in 2003 and has voluntarily entered into this stipulation. Based on the facts and circumstances including the mitigating factors surrounding Respondent’s misconduct, a public reproval with conditions for one year serves the purposes of attorney discipline as set forth in standard 1.3. A public reproval is consistent with the discipline imposed in cases of similar misconduct. The Supreme Court of California in re Kelley (1990) 52 Cal.3d 487 found that an attorney’s second conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 23152(b) [driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or greater] did not involve moral turpitude but did involve other misconduct warranting discipline. As the high court stated: "Although it is true that [Kelley’s] misconduct caused no harm to her clients, this fact alone does not insulate her from discipline aimed at ensuring that her potentially harmful misconduct does not recur." (Id. at p. 496.) In light of compelling mitigating circumstances, Kelley received a public reproval
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of April 30, 2013, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $2,343. 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 and/or any other educational course(s) to be ordered as a condition of reproval. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 3201 .)
Case Number(s): 12-C-15307-DFM
In the Matter of: Krishna Gene Haney
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: Krishna Gene Haney
Date: June 3, 2013
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Kelsey J. Blevins
Date: June 3, 2013
Case Number(s): 12-C-15307-DFM
In the Matter of: Krishna Gene Haney
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 REPROVAL IMPOSED.
<<not>> 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.
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.) 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: 6-4-13
[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 June 4, 2013, 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:
KRISHNA G. HANEY
3958 RIVIERA DR APT A
SAN DIEGO, CA 92109
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
KELSEY BLEVINGS, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on June 4, 2013.
Signed by:
Tammy Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court