STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CHARLIE CRIST, as Commissioner ) of Education, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 02-0963PL

)

RICHARD C. GRANTHAM, JR., )

)

Respondent. )

__________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on July 30, 2002, in Sebring, Florida, before Susan B. Kirkland, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire

Post Office Box 131

St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131

For Respondent: Richard C. Grantham, Jr., pro se

3892 State Road 64, East Zolfo Springs, Florida 33890

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Respondent violated Sections 231.2615(1)(c), 231.2615(1)(e), and 231.2615(2), Florida Statutes (2000), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On March 28, 2001, Petitioner, Charlie Crist, as Commissioner of Education, issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Richard C. Grantham (Grantham), alleging that he had violated Sections 231.2615(1)(c), 231.2615(1)(e), and 231.2615(2), Florida Statutes. Grantham requested an administrative hearing, and the case was received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 7, 2002.

The case was scheduled for final hearing on May 7, 2002.

The parties appeared for the final hearing on the scheduled date, and Grantham made an ore tenus motion to continue the final hearing. The motion was granted, and the final hearing was rescheduled for July 30, 2002.

On May 17, 2002, Petitioner filed Petitioner's Second Motion to Amend Administrative Complaint to correct a scrivener's error. The motion was granted by Order dated June 3, 2002.

At the final hearing, Petitioner called the following witnesses: William D. Scott, Darren Hood, and Jim Bible. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 7 were admitted in evidence. At the final hearing, Grantham testified in his own behalf and called the following witnesses: Richard C. Grantham, Sr.; Sarah Gilbreath; Jimmy Gilbreath; Brandy Michelle Gilbreath; and Richard Pimpkin. Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 13 were

admitted in evidence.

The parties agreed to file proposed recommended orders within ten days of the filing of the transcript. On August 19, 2002, the two-volume Transcript was filed.

Petitioner filed Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order on August 26, 2002. Respondent did not file a proposed recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Grantham holds a Florida Educator's Certificate No. 651850, covering the area of biology, which was valid

   through June 30, 1999. Grantham applied for a renewal of that certificate, but the application expired on June 11, 2001.

2. Grantham was employed as a teacher at Lake Placid High School in the Highlands County School District during the 1995-1996 school year. He is currently employed at Avon Park Correctional Institution as a correctional officer.

3. On November 25, 1997, Grantham was stopped by William D. Scott, a wildlife officer, in connection with a complaint of trespassing. Officer Scott asked for Grantham's hunting license, and Grantham produced a hunting license that was no longer valid. Officer Scott charged Grantham with trespassing and issued him a citation for not having a valid hunting license.

4. Grantham believed that he had bought a hunting license for the 1997 hunting season when he had gone to

   Wal-Mart to purchase some ammunition a few weeks before he was issued the citation. When he discovered that he had not purchased a hunting license, he returned to Wal-Mart. After discussing the matter with the Wal-Mart salesperson, the salesperson back-dated a hunting license for Grantham.

5. Grantham took the back-dated license to the Clerk of the Court's Office and gave it to a clerk there. The clerk dropped the charge of not having a valid hunting license because Grantham produced a hunting license which was dated before the date that Officer Scott issued the citation.

6. Learning that the charge had been dropped by the clerk, Officer Scott began to investigate whether Grantham's license had been issued prior to the date of the citation. Officer Scott visited the Wal-Mart where the hunting license had been sold and learned that the salesperson had back-dated the license. The salesperson was later dismissed for her actions.

7. When Grantham signed the hunting license, he knew that it was back-dated and that the information concerning the date of issuance was incorrect.

8. Grantham was charged with making a false statement to obtain a hunting license. On February 23, 1998, Grantham pled

   nolo contendre to the charge of making a false statement to obtain a hunting license. He was adjudicated guilty of the charge and ordered to pay a fine of $150 and court costs of

   $145.50, which he paid in full.

   
   

9. On September 11, 2000, Grantham and his wife, Brandy Grantham, were at his mother-in-law's house with his two nephews, who were six and two years old at the time. Grantham was roughhousing with the oldest child in the living room, where his mother-in-law, Sarah Gilbreath, was present. At the final hearing Mrs. Gilbreath could not recall what happened between Grantham and the oldest child. However, she gave a sworn statement to Deputy Darren Hood on September 18, 2000, in which she described what occurred between Grantham and the child:

   [Grantham] grabbed [the child] up playfully to begin with ah . . . scooped him up ah . . . I guess around the waist and flipped him over his lap with his um .

   . . face . . . face up with his feet up . .

   . up in the air over [Grantham's] lap and his hangin' down toward the floor. And he started pullin' the hairs on [the child's] legs. And it was funny for a . . . for a little bit.

   Oh, probably a minute. It was . . . it was funny. [The child] was gigglin' but then [Grantham] started really yanking the hairs and I'm sittin' in the recliner tryin' to coax [the child] out of his lap, but [Grantham] wasn't letting him go and then it started hurting.

   Well, [Grantham] wasn't . . . wasn't laugin' or smilin', he . . . he was concentrating on pullin' them hairs on . .

   . [the child's] legs. And he was . . . he started pullin' 'em pretty hard, yankin' 'em pretty hard and [the child] started asking [Grantham] to stop, he was hurtin' him. And repeatedly asked him to stop and he didn't stop so [the child] started cryin'. And he told [the child], he says, I'll pull all the hairs out of your legs and see how that feels. . . .[T]hen so [the child] was, you know, about to panic, he was . . . he was cryin' for him to stop, he was hurtin' him.

   
   

   * * *

   
   

   He [Grantham] says it was funny. I mean

   he . . . he wasn't laughin' or . . . he was not havin' fun with the kid, he was intent on inflictin' some pain at that point. . .

   . And [Grantham], at one point, well he . .

   . he jumped up and grabbed [the child] by the shoulders and . . . on the outside of the shoulders, and walked . . . started across the room to the loveseat again and probably threw [the child] two or three feet to the . . . to the couch, to the loveseat, in the corner of it then he took a step forward and grabbed [the child] on the . . . by the face.

   
   

   * * *

   
   

   [The child] wasn't doin' anything to provoke him at that time, he . . . was gettin' upset, which [the child] knows enough to know to be afraid of [Grantham] most of the time. Um, we . . . we've discussed it that he needs to . . . stay away from [Grantham], we have discussed this, that he needs to stay away from him because [Grantham] gets too rough and he was not provoking anything at that time when [Grantham] grabbed him up and threw him on the other couch.

   
   

10. At the final hearing, Mrs. Gilbreath did not deny that the statement she had given Deputy Hood was not true and

    accurate. Based on the demeanor of the witness, it is clear that the incident between Grantham and his six-year-old nephew took place as described by Mrs. Gilbreath in her sworn statement to Deputy Hood on September 18, 2000.

11. The younger child, who had been taking a nap in the rear of the house, came into the living room and jumped on Grantham. About the same time, Mrs. Grantham came out of the bathroom with a towel on and started to shout at Grantham, who told her that it was none of her business and to stay out of it. Grantham came toward his wife and pushed her down the hall into the bathroom.

12. Later the same day, Mrs. Grantham called the Sheriff's Office and made a complaint against her husband. A Deputy Sheriff came to her mother's house and took a voluntary written statement from Mrs. Grantham, in which she described what happened in the bathroom as follows:

    Richard slaped [sic] me on the [right] side of my head. Then he grabbed my hair and stached [sic] it trying to put me on the floor. My neck popped. Then he kept threating [sic] to shut up or he will punch me in the mouth.

    
    

13. At the final hearing, Mrs. Grantham recanted her written statement and testified that Grantham "never laid a hand on me," but that she grabbed her husband by the hair of his head, slapped him, scratched him, and grabbed his hands. She stated that she lied to the Deputy Sheriff because she was

    angry at her husband for leaving the house while they were having the argument concerning the incident with her nephew.

14. Given Mrs. Grantham's demeanor at the final hearing, more likely than not there was some grabbing and slapping by both Mr. and Mrs. Grantham. However, given that Mrs. Grantham recanted her written statement to the Deputy Sheriff, the Petitioner has not proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Grantham committed a battery on his wife.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

15. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes.

16. Petitioner alleges that Grantham violated Sections 231.2615(1)(c), 231.2615(1)(e), and 231.2615(2), Florida Statutes (2000), which provide:

    1. The Education Practices Commission may suspend the teaching certificate of any person as defined in s. 228.041(9) or (10) for a period of time not to exceed 3 years, thereby denying that person the right to teach for that period of time, after which the holder may return to teaching as provided in subsection (4); to revoke the teaching certificate of any person, thereby denying that person the right to teach for a period of time not to exceed 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions of subsection (4); to revoke permanently the teaching certificate of any person; to suspend the teaching certificate, upon order of the court, of

       any person found to have a delinquent child support obligation; or to impose any other penalty provided by law, provided it can be shown that the person:

       
       

       * * *

       
       

       (c) Has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude.

       
       

       * * *

       
       

       (e) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation.

       
       

       * * *

       
       

    2. The plea of guilty in any court, the decision of guilty by any court, the forfeiture by the teaching certificateholder of a bond in any court of law, or the written acknowledgement, duly witnessed, of offenses listed in subsection

       (1) to the superintendent of schools or a duly appointed representative or to the district school board shall be prima facie proof of grounds for revocation of the certificate as listed in subsection (1) in the absence of proof by the certificateholder that the plea of guilty, forfeiture of bond, or admission of guilt was caused by threats, coercion, or fraudulent means.

       
       

17. Petitioner has the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Grantham is guilty of the alleged violations. See Department of Banking and Finance v. Osborne Stern and Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996).

18. The "clear and convincing" standard requires:

    
    

    [T]hat the evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses

    testify must be distinctly remembered; the testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.

    
    

    Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

    
    

19. Grantham was adjudicated guilty of the crime of making a false statement to obtain a hunting license, which is not a minor traffic violation. Thus, Grantham is subject to discipline pursuant to Section 213.2615(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2000).

20. Grantham's actions toward his six-year-old nephew of pulling the hairs on the child's legs and throwing the child on a loveseat are acts of moral turpitude. In State ex rel. Tullidge v. Hollingsworth, 108 Fl. 607, 146 So. 660, 661 (Fla. 1933), the Florida Supreme Court defined moral turpitude as follows:

    Moral turpitude involves the idea of inherent baseness or depravity in the private social relations or duties owed by man to man or by man to society. [Citations omitted.] It has also been defined as anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals, though it often involves the question of intent as when unintentionally committed through error of judgment when wrong was not contemplated.

    Grantham was intentionally trying to inflict pain on the child beyond what would be expected during roughhousing between an uncle and a nephew.

21. The acts of signing a hunting license knowing that the license had been back-dated and then presenting the license to the Office of the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of showing that the license was valid at the time he was given a citation for not having a valid hunting license are also acts of moral turpitude.

22. Grantham is subject to discipline pursuant to Section 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2000).

23. Petitioner has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Grantham battered his wife on September 11, 2000.

24. Conviction of making a false statement to obtain a hunting license, is grounds for revocation pursuant to Section 231.2615(2), Florida Statutes (2000).

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Richard C. Grantham, Jr., is guilty of violating Sections 231.2615(1)(c), 231.2615(1)(e), and 231.2615(2), Florida

Statutes (2000), and permanently denying him a teaching certificate.

DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________ SUSAN B. KIRKLAND

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 2002.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Richard C. Grantham, Jr. 3892 State Road 64, East

Zolfo Springs, Florida 33890

Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Florida Education Center

Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131

St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131

Daniel Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 02-000963PL

Orders for Case No: 02-000963PL