Supreme Court of Florida _ No. SC15-348 _ STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. DONNA HORWITZ, Respondent. [May 5, 2016] PARIENTE, J. The issue before the Court is whether, under article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution and Florida evidentiary law, the State is precluded from using a defendant’s pre-arrest, pre-Miranda1 silence as substantive evidence of guilt when the defendant does not testify at trial. In Horwitz v. State, No. 4D13-336, 2015 WL 671136 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 18, 2015), the Four..
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DANIEL DOTSON, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D14-2842 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed October 6, 2014. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Edward P. Nickinson, III, Judge. Daniel Dotson, pro se, Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle D. Lylen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PE..
83 So. 3d 978 (2012) Joseph GOLPHIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 3D12-7. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. March 21, 2012. Joseph Golphin, in proper person. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee. Before SUAREZ, ROTHENBERG, and SALTER, JJ. *979 PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Little v. State, 77 So. 3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
381 F.3d 1309 AT&T BROADBAND, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TECH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., an active Florida corporation, Richard Marmer, Defendants-Appellants, Mr. Beverage, Deli & Middle Eastern Delights, Inc., an active Florida corporation, Defendant. No. 03-11235. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. August 30, 2004. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED James K. Green, James K. Green, P.A., W. Grey Tesh, W. Grey Tesh, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, Anthony J. Siciliano, Springfield, MA, for Defendants-Ap..
The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Corrected Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.Respondent is guilty of making deceptive representations related to the practice of medicine. Insufficient evidence that Respondent billed for services never provided. Recommend one-year suspension followed by probation.
The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.Respondent is guilty of prescribing legend drugs other than in the course of his professional practice, as well as engaging in deceptive conduct related to practice of medicine. Recommend revocation of license.
