GARY J. ANTHONY, )
vs. ) CASE NO. 86-3620
Respondent. )
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, through its duly designated Hearing Officer, W. Matthew Stevenson, held a formal hearing in this cause on November 14, 1986, in Vero Beach, Florida. The following appearances were entered.
For Petitioner: Clifford M. Miller, Esquire
For Respondent: Lealand L. McCharen, Esquire
By letter dated August 27, 1986, the Department of Insurance denied Gary J. Anthony's Application for Examination as a Limited Surety Agent (bail bondsman). Mr. Anthony disputed the factual allegations contained in the letter of August 27, 1986, and requested a formal administrative hearing.
This cause came on for final hearing on November 14, 1956. At the final hearing, Anthony testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of 6 witnesses. In addition, Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 6 were duly offered and admitted into evidence. The Respondent offered Respondent's Exhibit 1, which was duly admitted into evidence. At the Respondent's request, the record was left open for 30 days from the date of the final hearing for the submission of further documentary evidence obtained from the State of Connecticut. The documents were submitted in a timely manner and have been included in the record of these proceedings. Subsequent to the hearing, both parties submitted Proposed Findings of Fact. A ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact:
On January 27, 1986, the Petitioner, Gary J. Anthony, submitted an application for examination as a limited surety agent (bail bondsman) with the Department of Insurance and Treasurer.
By letter dated August 27, 1986, the Respondent denied Anthony's application, stating in part that:
your Application for Examination as a Limited Surety Agent must be denied because your history of arrests and charges indicates a person of untrustworthiness and lack of high character and approved integrity.
On August 26, 1986, the Petitioner was arrested in Connecticut and charged with the felony offense of aggravated assault. The Petitioner was subsequently convicted of misdemeanor assault.
In 1970, the Petitioner was arrested by civilian authorities and surrendered to military authorities for an alleged 5 day unauthorized absence. There was no evidence as to what action, if any, the military took with regard to this alleged offense. The Petitioner subsequently received an honorable discharge for his service with the United States Marine Corps.
On June 27, 1972, the Petitioner was arrested in Connecticut and charged with the felony offense of assault in the first degree. The Petitioner was subsequently convicted of misdemeanor assault.
On December 23, 1974, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with assault and battery in the Municipal Court of the City of Vero Beach, Florida. A nolle prosequi was entered by the City of Vero Beach in regard to this offense.
On November 3, 1975, the Petitioner was charged by Information with disorderly intoxication in St. Lucie County, Florida. After a jury trial, the Petitioner was found not guilty.
On July 18, 1980, the Petitioner was charged by Information with burglary, false imprisonment, aggravated battery and possession of a firearm while engaged in a felony offense in Broward County, Florida. A nolle prosequi was entered by the State Attorney's Office as to each charge.
On June 17, 1981, the Petitioner was charged by Information with disorderly conduct by fighting in Indian River County, Florida. The Petitioner was subsequently convicted of the misdemeanor offense of disorderly conduct.
On February 3, 1982, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with battery in Indian River County, Florida. The charges stemmed from a shoving match between the Petitioner and another customer at a Maryland Fried Chicken Store. Although the Petitioner entered a plea of no contest to the misdemeanor offense of battery, there was no evidence indicating whether or not the court entered an adjudication of guilt.
On February 24, 1982, the Petitioner was charged by Information with obstruction of justice in Indian River County, Florida. A nolle prosequi was entered by the State Attorney's Office as to this charge.
On May 20, 1982, the Petitioner was charged by Information with burglary of a structure while armed with intent to commit assault, shooting into an occupied dwelling, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Indian River County, Florida. After a jury trial, the Petitioner was found not guilty of all charges.
The Petitioner has never pled guilty or no contest to, and has never been convicted of a felony.
The Petitioner has been convicted of 3 misdemeanor offenses, once of disorderly intoxication (1981) and twice of misdemeanor assault (1972 and 1968).
The Petitioner indicated on his application for examination as a limited surety agent that he had been charged with a felony offense on 3 occasions. The Petitioner neglected to include the Connecticut felony charges which occurred in 1968 and 1972. The Petitioner's failure to include this information was an oversight and unintentional.
The Petitioner resides in Vero Beach, Florida, and has lived there since 1973. The Petitioner is self-employed as a automobile dealer.
Mark Gibbons, a fifteen-year veteran detective with the Indian River County Sheriff's Department has worked personally with the Petitioner for the past three years. Whenever the sheriff's office needs unmarked automobiles, Gibbons can rely on the Petitioner to loan vehicles from his car lot. The Petitioner has been familiar with some major undercover operations in Vero Beach and the operations have always remained secret. Gibbons' opinion is that the Petitioner is trustworthy and honest and has high moral character. Gibbons is familiar with the Petitioner's reputation in the community and among the detectives in the sheriff's office and the Petitioner's reputation is good.
Richard P. Breen, the director of the City of Vero Beach Airport, has known the Petitioner for approximately four years on a casual, social basis. Prior to becoming the director of the city airport, Mr. Breen worked for 20 years with the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, D.C., as an attorney. Breen's opinion is that the Petitioner is trustworthy and honest and has very good integrity.
Edward Bogan, a certified public accountant, does accounting work for the Petitioner's automobile business and has known the Petitioner for about 10 years. Bogan's opinion is that the Petitioner is trustworthy and honest and a man of high integrity. Bogan has never known the Petitioner to do anything dishonest or illegal with regard to his business financial records.
Richard Appell, Jr., is an assistant vice-president of the Barnett Bank in Indian River County and has known the Petitioner for about 3 years. Appell is a consumer lending officer in charge of indirect lending. In indirect lending, the bank sets up arrangements with car dealerships to do financing of cars that the dealerships sell to individuals. Appell has contact with the Petitioner on a weekly basis involving indirect lending. The Petitioner frequently takes credit applications completed by customers to Appell and requests financing or indirect lending. Appell's opinion is that the Petitioner is honest and trustworthy and of high character. Appell and the Barnett Bank have never had any problems with the Petitioner misrepresenting cars, down payments or amounts financed. When the bank approves an indirect lending transaction, it must rely on the integrity of the dealer because the bank does not see the car or the customer.
Ben Russo, the owner of a Dodge automobile dealership in Vero Beach, has known the Petitioner for about 15 years. Russo first met the Petitioner through buying and selling used cars in the Vero Beach area. Because of their common business, Russo has contact with the Petitioner about every other day. In Russo's opinion, the Petitioner is trustworthy and honest and has high moral character.
Terrence O'Brien, City Attorney for the City of Vero Beach, has known the Petitioner on a social basis for about six years. In O'Brien's opinion, the Petitioner is honest and trustworthy.
Robert J. Vatland, president of Vatland Oldsmobile, Inc., in Vero Beach, has known the Petitioner for approximately 10 years. In all of their business transactions, the Petitioner has been honest and has always exercised good judgment.
Casper W. Maier, sales manager for Ennessy Buick- Cadillac, Inc., in Vero Beach, has done business with the Petitioner since 1979. In all of their business transactions, the Petitioner has been honest and sincere. In Maier's opinion, the Petitioner is honest and trustworthy.
Dennis Widenhoffer, assistant manager at Firestone Service Center in Vero Beach, has known the Petitioner on a business and social basis for about 10 years. The Petitioner has been honest and fair in all of his transactions with Widenhoffer.
John Purdy, a superintendent for Reynolds, Stalls and McClain Drywall Company has known the Petitioner for about 20 years and is a close personal friend of the Petitioner. Purdy sees the Petitioner on a social basis about once each week. In Purdy's opinion, the Petitioner is honest and trustworthy and has high moral character.
American Bankers, Inc., has entered into an agreement to write the bonds for the Petitioner if Petitioner becomes a licensed bail bondsman.
The Petitioner is honest and trustworthy and has high moral character.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of these proceedings. Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
The Department of Insurance and Treasurer is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and licensing bail bondsmen in the state of Florida. Chapter 648, Florida Statutes.
Section 648.34(2), Florida Statutes, provides in part that:
(2) To qualify as a bail bondsman, it must affirmatively appear at the time of application and throughout the period of licensure that:
* * *
(f) The applicant is a person of high character and approved integrity and has not
been convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony, a crime involving moral turpitude, or a crime punishable by imprisonment of 1 year or more .
In addition, Section 648.45(2)(e), Florida Statutes, provides in part that the department shall deny licensure to any applicant who has "[d]emonstrated lack of fitness or untrustworthiness to engage in the bail bond business."
The uncontested evidence shows that the Petitioner has never been convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony or a crime punishable by imprisonment of one year or more or a crime involving moral turpitude. Disorderly intoxication and simple assault, of which the Petitioner was convicted, are misdemeanor offenses which do not involve moral turpitude. See Branch v. State, 99 Fla. 444, 128 So.2d, 487 (1930).
The sole issue left for determination is whether the Petitioner is a person of high character and approved integrity. This issue must be answered in the affirmative. The testimony and letters from Petitioner's witnesses indicating their trust in the Petitioner, their high opinion of his character, and their knowledge of his good reputation in the community far outweigh the tarnishing effects on the Petitioner's character provided by evidence of prior arrests (most of which ended in not guilty verdicts or dropped charges) and three misdemeanor convictions. Further, although the Petitioner has a string of arrests and charges filed against him, some are almost twenty years old and the most recent is over four years old. Section 648.34(2)(f), Florida Statutes, requires that the applicant's integrity and character "at the time of the application" be considered. In In Re Petition of Diez-Arguelles, 401 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 1981), the Supreme Court found that an applicant who has been convicted of a felony may be sufficiently rehabilitated after two years to gain admittance to the Florida Bar. In Diez-Arguelles, as in the instant case, the court noted that:
The board presented nothing contra- vening the evidence presented on the petitioner's behalf... No testimony or letter questioning his character was
produced. Nothing in the record contradicts Petitioner's assertion of his rehabilitation.
The Petitioner has worked to establish a good reputation in his community and he has done so successfully.
Likewise, the evidence did not show a demonstrated lack of fitness or untrustworthiness to engage in the bail bond business on the part of the Petitioner. It must certainly be expected that the Petitioner would perform any duties in the bail bond business with the same degree of honesty and integrity with which he conducts his other business affairs. The evidence established that the Petitioner is trusted, respected, and considered to be of high moral character by his business associates and social acquaintances.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Gary J. Anthony, be allowed to take the
examination for limited surety agent and if he passes the examination, be eligible for licensure as a limited surety agent.
DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida.
W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1987.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3620
The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.
Clifford M. Miller, Esquire Miller & Miller
Lealand L. McCharen, Esquire 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
