917 So. 2d 989 (2005) Earl MURRAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 3D05-2560. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. December 28, 2005. Earl Murray, in proper person. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee. Before WELLS, CORTIÑAS, and ROTHENBERG, JJ. *990 PER CURIAM. We review the defendant's motion for post-conviction relief under Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850 in which he alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective. However, the motion was not properly s..

917 So. 2d 403 (2006) David FRISBIE, Appellant, v. Michael GARDINER and Edmond Gardiner, Appellees. No. 4D05-368. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. January 4, 2006. Donna Waters Romero of Grotefeld & Denenberg, LLC, Plantation, for appellant. Jennifer L. Gardner, West Palm Beach, for appellees. *404 SHAHOOD, J. Appellant, David Frisbie, appeals the Final Judgment which dismissed his cause of action against appellees, Michael Gardiner and Edmond Gardiner, for lack of prosecutio..

917 So. 2d 867 (2006) DURHAM v. STATE. No. 1D04-2035. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. January 5, 2006. Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.

Department of Insurance emergency rule 4ER95-1, effective August 1, 1995, adopted by reference certain amendments to the Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association (FWUA) Plan of Operation and Articles of Agreement. The amendments included a provision that membership in FWUA shall terminate at the end of the association year during which the member is no longer licensed to transact property insurance in the state. Sued for an assessment to pay claims resulting from Hurricane Opal, Preferred Mutual Insurance Company now challenges the emergency rule, and more particularly the extended membership provision. Issues for disposition in this case are the standing of Preferred Mutual and the validity of 4ER95-1.Emergency rule which extended FWUA membership but failed to state emergency basis for the rule is invalid.

This case concerns the issue of whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined for violations of Chapter 849, Florida Statutes, which prohibits gambling. At the formal hearing, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco called as witnesses Beverage Lieutenant Thomas Stout and Beverage Officer Stephen Tompkins. The Respondent called as witnesses Jack Bent, Wade Byington, Sam Fritz, Daniel Cronin, John Hengerle, Ward Hill, Earl Martel and Neal Mills. The Petitioner offered and had admitted seven exhibits and the Respondent offered and had admitted three exhibits. A drawing of the licensed premises as contained in the Division of Alcoholic Beverages official records was placed into evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 1. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the undersigned Hearing Officer. To the extent that these proposed findings and conclusions of law are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions herein they were considered by the Hearing Officer and rejected as being unsupported by the evidence or unnecessary to a resolution of this cause.Despite finding gambling paraphrenalia at lodge site, there was no proof presented as to whom it belonged or whether it was used. Dismiss complaint.

The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined for a violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes, a provision of the Florida Beverage Law, which prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor. At the formal hearing the Petitioner called as witnesses: Thomas L. Stout, Bernard W. Cooper, Timothy J. Culley, and Craig Brady Cooper. Mr. Antonino Sciarrino testified on behalf of respondent. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence two exhibits and the Respondent offered no exhibits into evidence. Both the Respondent and counsel for the Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the hearing officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions of law are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions contained within this order they were considered by the hearing officer and rejected as being unsupported by the evidence or unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.Recommend dismissal of charges because Respondent took every possible precaution to avoid sale to minors but employee did anyway when unsupervised.

Whether Petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverage license, 4-COP, SRX, should be granted or denied on the grounds stated in Respondent's letter of denial dated December 9, 1982.Incomplete license application was not sufficient to show good character sufficient to support transfer of license.

Whether the respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined on charges of violating Chapters 561 and 562, Fla. Stat. (1981), the Florida Beverage Law.Revoke license for multiple violations of beverage law due to solicitation of drinks by dancers.

This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent's beverage license should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for failure to remit taxes for the months of June and July, 1982. On September 14, 1982, Petitioner served a notice to show cause on the Respondent, Action "1" Distributing, Inc. The notice to show cause alleged that the Respondent had failed to remit $38,692.80 taxes due to have been remitted with Respondent's June 10, 1982, monthly alcoholic beverage report and $5,749.40 required to have been remitted with Respondent's July 10, 1982, monthly alcoholic beverage report. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing, and pursuant to notice, the formal hearing was scheduled for March 16, 1983. At that hearing, the Respondent was represented by Susan Svedin, who after inquiry, was determined to be a proper representative of the company. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as its witnesses Lt. Thomas Stout, Supervising Beverage Agent Officer for the Ft. Myers District, Beverage Officer Robert Baggett, and Sharon Fox, Auditor for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Petitioner offered into evidence seven exhibits which were admitted without objection. Susan Svedin testified on behalf of the Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to be considered by the undersigned Hearing Officer. To the extent that such proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not adopted in this order, they were considered by the undersigned Hearing Officer and determined to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.Respondent failed to pay malt beverage taxes. Revoke Respondent's license.

By amended notice to show cause, Respondent has been charged with the following violations: On or about July 14, 1982, you, Harry's Restaurant & Lounge, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws as a special restaurant, failed to discontinue the sale of alcoholic beverages when the service of full course meals had been discontinued contrary to Administrative Rule 7A3.15 and F.S. 561.20. On or about July 15, 1982, you, Harry's Restaurant & Lounge, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws as a special restaurant, failed to discontinue the sale of alcoholic beverages when the service of full course meals had been discontinued contrary to Administrative Rule 7A3.15 and F.S. 561.20. On or about January 1982 through June 1982 you, Harry's Restaurant & Lounge, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws as a special restaurant, failed to derive at least 51 percent of your gross revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages, the principal business of the licensed premises is not the serving of full course, bona fide meals and the licensee does not meet the re- quirements of Section 561.20, Florida Statutes, to hold a special restaurant license. Section 561.15(3)(c) , Florida Statutes. At the formal hearing the Petitioner called as witnesses Thomas L. Stout, Second Lieutenant with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco and Kathy Lux, Beverage Officer. Mr. Harry Popham, Jr., testified on behalf of the Respondent. The Petitioner offered and had admitted three exhibits and the Respondent offered and had admitted three exhibits. After proper inquiry, it was determined that Harry H. Popham, Jr. was a proper and acceptable representative for the Respondent at the formal hearing. The counsel for Petitioner submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to be considered by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not adopted herein they were considered and rejected as being irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.Civil penalty of $2000 for failure to stop selling booze after full course meals no longer served and failing to get fifty-one percent of revenue from food.