State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Cantrell , 1987 Okla. LEXIS 165 ( 1987 )

ORDER OF DISBARMENT

[1,2] On consideration of:

1. The opinion by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Cantrell v. State, Okl.Cr., 697 P.2d 968 (1985);

2. The April 22, 1986 mandate in Cantrell v. State, supra;

3. The District Court’s June 25,1982 judgment-and-sentence;

4. The May 24, 1985 post-mandate order suspending respondent’s sentence and placing him on unsupervised probation;

5. This Court’s September 30, 1982 order placing respondent's license to practice law under suspension effective October 30, 1982;

6. This Court’s May 6, 1985 order affording the respondent the opportunity to explain his criminal misconduct with a view to mitigating the severity of professional discipline to be administered on his conviction and the affirmance of judgment-and-sentence by the Court of Criminal Appeals;

7. The July 24, 1986 report of the PRT’s trial panel recommending respondent’s continued suspension from practice until May 29, 1988 with eligibility for a reinstatement quest on or after that date;

8. The transcript of proceedings conducted before the assigned PRT trial panel; and

9. Briefs of the parties-litigant,

THE COURT HOLDS that:

(a) the transcript is devoid of any evidence explaining or mitigating the criminal misconduct — attempted perjury by subornation — of which the respondent stands convicted;

(b) the crime of which respondent stands convicted operates to render him unfit to practice law;

(c) disbarment is a fit disciplinary sanction to be imposed upon affirmance of respondent’s conviction; and

(d) whenever this Court is called upon to function in its constitutional capacity as the state’s exclusive licensing authority for legal practitioners, its decisions are made de novo. All facts responsive to the issues formed before the panel must be independently redetermined. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Raskin, Okl., 642 P.2d 262, 265 (1982) and State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Braswell, Okl., 663 P.2d 1228, 1230 (1983).

Because of the gravity of respondent’s criminal misconduct and, inasmuch as his culpable act is neither mitigated nor explained by extenuating circumstances in the record, there is here absolutely no basis for a sanction less severe than that of disbarment. See, Nix v. Whiteside, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 988, 89 L.Ed.2d 123 (1986).

THE RESPONDENT STANDS DISBARRED as a licensed legal practitioner in the State of Oklahoma, effective October 30, 1982, the date of original suspension by this Court; the costs of this proceeding, in the sum of $1,736.15, are hereby assessed against the respondent. Respondent’s eligibility to seek reinstatement stands conditioned upon payment of costs herein taxed.

DOOLIN, C.J., and LAVENDER, ALMA WILSON, KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ., concur. HARGRAVE, V.C.J., and HODGES, SIMMS and OPALA, JJ., concur in part, dissent in part.