Furnish v. Board of Medical Examiners
| Decision Date | 19 April 1957 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Richard D. FURNISH, M.D., Appellant, v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS of the State of California, Respondent. Civ. 21721. |
Murray M. Chotiner, Russell E. Parsons, Beverly Hills, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Howard S. Goldin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
On March 20, 1957, this court filed its decision affirming the order of the superior court in the above entitled action.
On April 3, 1957, a Petition for Rehearing was filed by the appellant, within the time provided for by law; the Petition for Rehearing was denied on April 9, 1957. Appellant has filed in the Supreme Court a Petition for Hearing.
On April 10, 1957, appellant made an application to this court to grant a rehearing on its own motion under Rule 27, rules on Appeal.
Appellant's present application is basically grounded on the following allegations:
'Petitioner intends to file before the Honorable Leon Yankwich, Judge of the Federal District Court, a motion to correct the sentence heretofore imposed against the petitioner on his plea of nolo contendere to two counts of violating Section 145(b) of the Internal Revenue Code [26 U.S.C.A. § 145(b)] to show that he was convicted of violating Section 3616(a) of the Internal Revenue Code [26 U.S.C.A. § 3616(a)], a misdemeanor.
'Said motion will be made under the authority of Section 2255 of Title 28 of the United States Code;
'The case of Griffin v. United States, 6 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 909, holds that even though a sentence is served, but if invalid and creates an unjust result the Court will not ignore error;
'The basis of the motion to correct the sentence is that the offense of violating Section 145(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, a felony, is, in effect, the same as violating Section 3616(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, a misdemeanor'.
Upon the authority and for the reasons stated in Ex parte Berkoff, D.C., 65 F.Supp. 976, 979, 781, and the holding in bowles v. United States, 4 Cir., 73 F.2d 772, 776, certiorari denied 294 U.S. 710, 55 S.Ct. 506, 79 L.Ed. 1245, the application is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arneson v. Fox
...no such legislative intent has been stated. We distinguish Furnish v. Board of Medical Examiners (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 326, 308 P.2d 924, 309 P.2d 493, urged by the Commissioner as authority for the proposition that a federal nolo conviction by itself is a sufficient basis for disciplinary ......
-
Otash v. Bureau of Private Investigators and Adjusters
...showing of a lack fitness of a licensee is required. (Furnish v. Board of Medical Examiners, 149 Cal.App.2d 326, 330, 308 P.2d 924, 309 P.2d 493.) In such cases, the facts have already been determined in the criminal proceedings. (Ratliff v. Lampton, 32 Cal.2d 226, 227, 195 P.2d 792, 10 A.L......
-
Furnish v. Board of Medical Examiners of California, 15835.
...Examiners of the State of California on November 10, 1955. 1 Furnish v. Board of Medical Examiners, 149 Cal.App.2d 326, 308 P.2d 924, 309 P.2d 493. 2 Id., 149 Cal.App.2d 326, 332, 308 P.2d 924, 309 P.2d 3 Id., 149 Cal.App.2d 326, 333, 308 P.2d 924, 929. 4 Id., 355 U.S. 827, 78 S.Ct. 37, 2 L......
-
Morris v. Board of Medical Examiners
...within the meaning of this section.' In Furnish v. Board of Medical Examiners, 149 Cal.App.2d 326, page 330, 308 P.2d 924, page 927, 309 P.2d 493 (decided March 20, 1957), it was held that by that section 'the legislature intended that the conviction of a felony in and of itself, without an......