Court Opinion

ID: 5152765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 02:04:08.599744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:53:25.962184
License: Public Domain

[1] Respondent attorney was convicted of the felonious crime of Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and sentenced to a term of one year in the county jail and a fine of $500.00 in accordance with a jury verdict.
[2] No appeal was perfected from the judgment and sentence, and the conviction has become final. In fact, the sentence has been executed.
[3] Pursuant to the Rules Governing the Oklahoma Bar Association, the Association filed with this Court a copy of the Information, and a certified copy of the Judgment of Conviction, and gave Notice to Respondent to appear and Show Cause, if any he had, why he should not be disciplined. See: 5 O.S. 1971, Ch. 1-App. 1, Art. 10, Sec. 4(b) and (c).
[4] At the Show Cause Hearing before this Court, Respondent personally appeared with counsel, and stipulated that the conviction had become final; that the offense involved "moral turpitude"; acknowledged that he was subject to disciplinary proceedings; and informed the Court that following the conviction by jury, he had voluntarily suspended himself from the practice of law.
[5] Respondent further waived any claim of right under 5 O.S., Ch. 1-App. 1, Art. 10, Sec. 4(d) to submit a certified copy of the transcript taken in the trial tribunal. Respondent did not offer any evidence in mitigation, other than to maintain his innocence of the charge.
[6] The record clearly shows that both procedural and substantive due process requirements have been met.
[7] Complainant and Respondent both waived the filing of briefs, therefore, the only issue before this Court is the nature of discipline to be imposed upon Respondent.
[8] In State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v.Seeyle, Okla., 490 P.2d 1095, it was held that:
 "This Court will order a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association disbarred where such member has been convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude and the judgment of conviction has been affirmed on final appeal."
[9] There is no question as to the finality of the conviction in the instant case. No issue having been raised as to the conviction involving a crime of "moral turpitude"; *Page 1134 
and no evidence in mitigation having been offered; it is the Order of this Court that Respondent, Walter Edmund Keen, BE DISBARRED.
[10] Notice of the decision herein arrived at shall be given by the Chief Justice to the Respondent and the Oklahoma Bar Association in accordance with 5 O.S. 1971, Ch. 1-App. 1, Art. 10, Sec. 16(c).
[11] RESPONDENT DISBARRED.
[12] DAVISON, LAVENDER, BARNES and DOOLIN, JJ., concur.
[13] WILLIAMS, C.J., HODGES, V.C.J., and IRWIN and BERRY, JJ., concur in results.