STATE EX REL STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED COURTROOM INTERPRETERS v. ALVARADO (2025)

¶1 This case involves the discipline of a courtroom interpreter who pleaded no contest to embezzling $8,100.00, which is a felony. After reviewing the State Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters’ (Board) unanimous recommendation, we revoke Respondent Jazmin C. Alvarado's enrollment as a Registered Courtroom Interpreter.

I.

¶2 The State Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters credentials and regulates courtroom interpreters under the supervision of this Court. 20 O.S. §§ 1701--10. The Board is authorized to “[c]onduct proceedings, on reasonable notice, the object of which are to recommend to [this] Court the suspension, cancellation, revocation, or reinstatement of the enrollment of a certified courtroom interpreter” on grounds including “a final conviction of a criminal offense involving moral turpitude”¹ and “fraud, gross incompetence, or gross or habitual neglect of duty ․” Id. § 1702(A)(5)(a) & (d).

¶3 Following a disciplinary proceeding, the Board must “issue a written report with findings of fact and conclusions of law as applicable, and its recommendation to [this] Court for or against discipline.” Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings of the State Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters (RGDP-CI) Rule 6(d), 20 O.S. Ch. 23, App. III. Once the Board files its report, we exercise plenary review. “[T]he Supreme Court ․ may ․ adopt or reject such recommendations in whole or in part, remand with instructions, or make such other disposition as [this] Court may deem proper, with or without oral argument or formal written opinion.” RGDP-CI Rule 7(d).

II.

¶4 Respondent has been a Registered Courtroom Interpreter since 2022. (Order, SCAD No. 2022-26 (Okla. May 23, 2022).) She is subject to the Courtroom Interpreter Disciplinary Rules. RGDP-CI Rule 1(a). Rule 2 sets out several grounds for professional discipline, including “[f]inal conviction of a criminal offense which indicates a clear and rational likelihood that the interpreter will not properly discharge the responsibilities of a certified courtroom interpreter ․”

¶5 On January 12, 2023, Respondent was charged by information with one count of felony embezzlement in violation of 21 O.S. § 1451. (Ex. 1 to Verified Compl. and Notice of Hr'g at *1--2.) Pursuant to a May 2024 deferred sentence plea agreement, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere and was found guilty as charged. (Id. at *3--14.)  ²

¶6 In response, the Board commenced formal disciplinary proceedings pursuant to RGDP-CI Rule 5. Respondent did not respond to the Board's complaint. After giving Respondent more than 30 days’ notice, the Board conducted a formal disciplinary hearing consistent with RGDP-CI Rule 6. The Board received testimony and conclusive evidence of Respondent's criminal conviction. Respondent did not appear at the hearing. The Board concluded both that there were sufficient grounds for imposing discipline and that Complainant met its burden of persuasion. Following deliberation in open session, the Board publicly cast and recorded all votes recommending that Respondent's enrollment as a Registered Courtroom Interpreter be revoked. (Finds. of Fact, Concls. of Law and Rec. of Discipline at *1--8.)

III.

¶7 Upon de novo review, we hold that Respondent's plea of no contest to felony embezzlement is a [1] “[f]inal conviction of [2] a criminal offense [3] which indicates a clear and rational likelihood that the interpreter will not properly discharge the responsibilities of a certified courtroom interpreter ․” RGDP-CI Rule 2(a). First, Respondent received a “final conviction” by pleading no contest pursuant to a deferred sentence plea agreement. Rule 2(a)(2) specifically provides that “final conviction includes a plea of ․ nolo contendere pursuant to a deferred sentence plea agreement ․” Second, embezzlement plainly qualifies as a criminal offense. Rule 2(a)(1) defines “criminal offense” to include “any felony.” Embezzlement, pursuant to 21 O.S. § 1451(B)(3), is a felony. Third, felony embezzlement is a criminal offense “which indicates a clear and rational likelihood that the interpreter will not properly discharge the responsibilities of a certified courtroom interpreter.” We have long recognized embezzlement as a crime of moral turpitude. Bancroft, 1949 OK 216, ¶ 9, 202 Okla. 108, 210 P.2d at 668; In re Williams, 1917 OK 459, ¶ 5, 64 Okla. 316, 167 P. 1149, 1152. The court, parties, and counsel all depend on the integrity of courtroom interpreters to administer justice. Guilt of embezzlement demonstrates a likelihood that an interpreter will not properly discharge their responsibilities.

¶8 Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Complainant met its “burden of persuasion on the material elements of the complaint.” RGDP-CI Rule 6(b). We likewise conclude that discipline is warranted because Respondent's final conviction for felony embezzlement demonstrates a clear and rational likelihood that Respondent will be unable to properly discharge her duties and responsibilities as a Registered Courtroom Interpreter. RGDP-CI Rule 5(c).

¶9 While this Court retains full discretion over the appropriate sanction in interpreter disciplinary proceedings, we agree with and adopt the Board's recommendation. Respondent Jazmin C. Alvarado's enrollment as a Registered Courtroom Interpreter is hereby revoked.

* * *

¶10 Respondent may seek reinstatement of her credentials in accordance with RGDP-CI Rule 9(b) no sooner than five years from the date of this decision.

RESPONDENT'S ENROLLMENT AS A REGISTERED COURTROOM INTERPRETER IS REVOKED

FOOTNOTES

1.   “[M]oral turpitude is ‘anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.’ ” Bancroft v. Bd. of Governors of Registered Dentists of Okla., 1949 OK 216, ¶ 9, 202 Okla. 108, 210 P.2d 666, 668 (citation omitted). “Embezzlement ․ denote[s] moral turpitude; and, as a general rule, all crimes of which fraud is an element are looked on as involving moral turpitude.” Id.

2.   Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Logan County District Court ordered Respondent's judgment and sentence deferred for approximately three years, until May 21, 2027. (Ex. 2 to Verified Compl. and Notice of Hr'g at *2--6.)

JETT, J.:

ALL JUSTICES CONCUR