The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of having obtained a real estate license by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2004). Whether Respondent is guilty of failure to comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-2.027(2), and, therefore, is in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes (2004). At all times material, Respondent was a licensed Florida real estate sales associate, issued license number 3019284 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2004). Petitioner has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission). Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission's jurisdiction. On or about August 6, 2001, Respondent submitted to Petitioner an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Respondent signed a sworn affidavit on the application which indicated that Respondent carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements were true, correct, and complete to his knowledge without any evasions or mental reservations. Question 9 on the application asks: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no Contest), even if adjudication was withheld: This question applies to a violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing to answering "NO." If you answered "Yes," attach the details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. Respondent marked the "Yes" box on the application in response to this question and provided insufficient or no explanation for the incidents in his criminal history. Respondent signed the "Affidavit of Applicant." Respondent's signature was duly notarized, and the application was submitted. Relying on Respondent's incomplete representations, Petitioner issued Respondent a Florida real estate salesperson's license. Petitioner subsequently performed a background check and discovered the following: In 1998, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of DUI. In 1987, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of possession of a controlled substance. In 1986, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of driving under the influence of liquor. In 1985, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of driving a motor vehicle while his license was suspended. In 1985, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of simple assault and battery. Respondent failed to include the above-mentioned adjudications on his application for licensure. Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are copies of court documents demonstrating that Respondent was adjudicated guilty in each unreported offense. Respondent testified that he failed to report the adjudications until August 20, 2003. However, Respondent's reporting of the adjudications occurred after Petitioner discovered them and prompted Respondent to explain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order declaring Respondent has been found guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2004), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-2.027(2), and, therefore, Subsection 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and suspending Respondent's license until June 30, 2005, and requiring that Respondent pay a $1,000 fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 1st day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: James P. Harwood, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Hurston Building North Tower Suite 801N 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Michael G. Nichola, Esquire 800 North Ferncreek Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Juana Watkins, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offenses; and, if so, whether Respondent's intended action to deny Petitioner's request for an exemption from employment disqualification would constitute an abuse of discretion.
Findings Of Fact APD serves clients with disabilities such as autism, intellectual disabilities, Downs Syndrome, and Prader-Willi Syndrome. APD's clients range from those needing total care to those who can live on their own with minimal assistance. The services APD provides to its clients include personal care, respite care, adult day training, supported living, and a wide variety of other services. The aforementioned services are provided by APD's vendors in individual homes, group homes, and supported living arrangements. Petitioner is seeking to work as a direct service provider in a group home for persons with developmental disabilities. Section 435.06(2), Florida Statutes, mandates that an employer may not hire someone for a position requiring contact with any "vulnerable person" until a completed background screening "demonstrates the absence of any grounds for the denial or termination of employment." The Department of Children and Families ("DCF") administers the background screening process for APD. APD's Action Petitioner's background screening identified three felony counts that are disqualifying criminal offenses, and all for resisting an officer with violence to his person. On November 14, 2016, DCF notified Petitioner that she was disqualified from employment due to her criminal history and specifically because of the three counts of resisting an officer with violence to his person from a November 26, 1975, Miami Dade incident. On or around December 1, 2016, Petitioner submitted a request for exemption, which included the exemption application and questionnaire to DCF. The instructions provided: "[f]or EACH criminal offense appearing on your record, please write your DETAILED version of the events and be specific. Attach extra pages as needed and please type or write legibly. When Petitioner filled out the questionnaire, she provided the following answers to each question on the exemption questionnaire: Question #1 asked for "disqualifying incident(s)." Petitioner responded "3 Counts of Resisting Arrest with Violence." In response to Question #2 "Non-disqualifying Offenses(s)," Petitioner again provided none of the details surrounding these offenses. She listed two non-disqualifying offenses, "Battery" and "Petit Theft" to which she had criminal dispositions. Question #3 asks, "What is the current status in the court system?" Petitioner responded, "N/A." In Response to Question #4 on her Exemption Questionnaire, regarding "the degree of harm to any victim or property (permanent or temporary), damages or injuries," Petitioner indicated "N/A." In answering Question #5, about whether there were "any stressors in [her] life at the time of the disqualifying incident," Petitioner again indicated "N/A." Question #6 asked whether there are any current stressors in her life, Petitioner responded: "[D]ivorced living at home with my 3 minor children. I am a spokes-person for the SEIU union. Fight for Fifteen. I feed the homeless in my community." As confirmed at hearing, Petitioner listed educational achievements and training as the following: Fla College of Business – Certified Nursing Assistant (1985) National School of Technology – Surgical Tech (1998) Food Service – Brevard C.C. Under Question #8 of the Exemption Questionnaire, in response to the question whether she had ever received any counseling, Petitioner indicated "N/A." Question #9 of the Exemption Questionnaire asks, "Have you ever used/misused drugs and alcohol? Please be specific and list the age at which you started and how you started." Petitioner again responded "N/A." Question #10 of the Exemption Questionnaire asks whether Petitioner was involved in any community activities. Petitioner responded, "I have volunteered with Senator Dwight Bullard, Fla. State Rep. McGhee, Mayor Woodard, Joe Garcia, etc." Question #11 asks the applicant to "Document any relevant information related to the acceptance of responsibility for disqualifying and non-disqualifying offenses." Petitioner responded as follows: "Yes. I accept responsibility at the time of this offense I was 17 years of age and trying to fit in with my friends. I have learned when you know better you do better." The Exemption Questionnaire also requested Petitioner to provide her three prior years' work history. Petitioner provided detailed information about her 18-year work history in the health care field, which included care of the vulnerable community. Petitioner has worked in a hospital, nursing home, private home, and with both mental health and hospice patients. Petitioner's answer also outlines how she had performed some of the same job responsibilities as a direct service provider for the following employers: JR Ranch Group Home LLC: C.N.A 10/3/16 to present-Companion to individual bathing, feeding, dressing, grooming, etc. Nurse Plus Agency: C.N.A. 3/12/08 to 9/7/15- Working in private homes with hospice patients bathing, feeding grooming, shaving, R.O.M. T.C.C. vital signs, doctor's appointments, etc. Gramercy Park Nursing Home: C.N.A. 2/15/05 to 3/12/08-Working in skilled nursing facility doing patient care, vitals, charting, lifting, bathing, feeding, dressing, physical therapy, etc. Jackson M. Hospital: C.N.A. 1/7/98 to 5/8/2001-Working on HIV unit, patient care, R.O.M., bed making, bathing, feeding, dressing, shaving, oral care, transferring, lifting, etc. On December 15, 2016, DCF sent a letter to Petitioner requesting additional documentation to complete the exemption application. Petitioner was asked to "provide the arrest report (from arresting agency) and CERTIFIED court disposition JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE" for the following offenses appearing on [her] criminal history screening report: 05/20/2013 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BW DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED 5/11/2002 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGGRAV BATTERY 5/11/2002 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGGRAV BATTERY 12/22/2001 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, COUNTY ORD VIOL 1/13/1998 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGGRAV BATTERY 1/13/1998 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BATTERY 1/13/1998 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGGRAV BATTERY 1/13/1998 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BATTERY 9/28/1996 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGGRAV BATT-POL OFF 9/28/1996 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, RESISTING OFFICER 9/28/1996 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BATTERY 9/28/1996 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, RESISTING OFFICER 4/11/1994 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGG ASSLT - WEAPON 4/11/1994 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGG ASSAULT –WEAPON 01/14/1991 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SHOPLIFTING 11/07/1981 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ASSAULT 11/07/1981 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, RESISTING OFFICER 11/07/1981 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISORDERLY CONDUCT The DCF letter also instructed Petitioner that if she could not obtain the arrest report and/or court disposition, she might submit a notarized written "detailed statement on each arrest explaining why you were arrested. You must include the victim's age and relationship to you and the sentence you received (probation, jail, prison, etc)." Additionally, the letter requested proof of income, an affidavit of good moral character, two to five letters of recommendation, and a personal history explaining what happened with each arrest, current home life, education, training, family members, goals, and community involvement. The letter provided Petitioner a 30-day deadline and notified Petitioner "[n]o further action [would] be taken on [her] application for exemption until we receive the requested information." (emphasis added). On or about December 21, 2016, Petitioner complied with the DCF letter and provided 99 pages of documents including Florida Criminal History Record requested, certified police arrest reports, notarized printed dockets of her criminal offenses with court dispositions, notarized document from the Clerk of Circuit and County Court Harvey Ruvin listing all Petitioner's criminal charges and court dispositions available in Miami-Dade, certificate of parole, 2009 certificate of restoration of civil rights, taxes, nursing assistant certification, certificate of liability insurance, continuing education certificates, program certificates, June 13, 2015, White House Conference on Aging program listing Petitioner as a speaker at the White House, 2015 newspaper articles detailing Petitioner's substantive work in minimum pay raise advocacy nationwide for the Fight for Fifteen campaign, letters of recommendation, driving history records, ACHA exemption to work in the healthcare field as a Certified Nursing Assistant ("CNA"), and a personal statement. Petitioner's personal statement and testimony at hearing provided a comprehensive history of how she has been a caregiver since 1982 "working [i]n hospitals, nursing homes, mental health, hospice, private homes, SLF, etc." Petitioner's statement further detailed that she became a Certified Nursing Assistant in 1985 after the disqualifying offense incident and became a surgical technician in 1997. Petitioner also provided the requested following explanations for each of her arrests: 1.) 11/26/1975: I was arrested for (3) counts of resisting arrest with violence. At the time I was 17 years of age hanging with the wrong crowd. 2.) 11/07/1981: Was at a party drinking got in fight with boyfriend. No case action. 3.) 01/14/1991: In store buying groceries didn't realize there were a pair of socks in my buggy charged with petty theft no way I would have stolen a pair of one dollar socks. Judge was dumbfounded. 4.) 04/11/1994: Got into argument with my mother in which she was drinking she called police to say I had a gun. In which was not true. Office[r] ask me had I ever been to jail I stated yes he then said put your hands behind your back then placed me under arrest. My Mom was there next morning to bond me out. Case No Action. 5.) 09/28/1996: I was witness to a murder I told officer what I seen but didn't want to speak in front of people, also did not want to be labeled as a snitcher. I told the officer I would come to talk but I would not walk with him. I proceeded to walk away the officer grabbed me by the back of my hair, the officer and I proceeded to fight at that time other people got involved. The lead detective asked the officer why he did that. The lead detective promise me he would come to court with me in which he did case was dismissed. Case No Action. 6.) Boyfriend and I got into argument he was drinking and he wanted to drive I told him no he wouldn't give me my keys, so I proceeded to knock head lights out. Case No Action. 7.) 01/13/1998: Got in fight with boyfriend. Case No Action. Petitioner responded to the best of her ability to each of DCF's requests for information. DCF summarized Petitioner's 99 document submission in an Exemption Review Summary ("summary") and forwarded the application, questionnaire, and supporting documents to APD for review. The summary correctly identified Petitioner's 1975 acts of resisting an officer as the disqualifying offenses. The summary outlined twelve non-disqualifying offenses with which Petitioner was charged. However, the summary categorized one non-disqualifying offense as a driving charge and outlined an additional nine non-disqualifying offenses as dismissed or dropped, as Petitioner had reported in her personal statement when she said "no action" was taken. The summary only listed a 1991 shoplifting charge and a 2001 county ordinance violation for which Petitioner was prosecuted. On March 17, 2017, Agency Director Barbara Palmer advised Petitioner by letter that her request for an exemption from the disqualification has been denied. The basis for the denial was that Petitioner failed to submit clear and convincing evidence of her rehabilitation. On May 1, 2017, Petitioner requested to appeal APD's denial. Hearing At hearing, as well as in the exemption package, Petitioner took full responsibility for her disqualifying offenses. At hearing, Cunningham also showed remorse. In her personal statement she stated she "paid her debt to society . . . learned from [her] mistakes." Petitioner also credibly explained the circumstances at hearing for her 1975 disqualifying convictions and testified that she was 17 years old when she broke into the neighbor's empty house across the street and was hanging out there. When she was arrested they were handling her roughly. She was originally charged with burglary, larceny and resisting arrest. The burglary and larceny charges were dropped and she pled to three counts of resisting an officer with violence to his person. Petitioner was sentenced to a youth program but left it, was bound over as an adult, and was sentenced to prison where she served three and a half years. Petitioner successfully completed her parole on August 23, 1981, and her civil rights were restored on May 8, 2008. Petitioner testified to her other non-disqualifying offenses as she had detailed in her personal statement. She explained that the 1981 criminal charge was dropped and stemmed from a fight with her boyfriend while at a party where she had been drinking. In 1994, her mom, who was a drinker, was acting out and called the police on Petitioner. Her mother lied and told the police Petitioner had a gun, which she did not. The police asked Petitioner if she had been to jail previously and she answered yes and was arrested. Her mother came and got her out of jail the next morning and the case was dismissed. Petitioner verified that in 1996, she would not tell the police officer what she saw regarding a murder because she was going to the police station to report it privately. The officer grabbed her from behind, they fell to the ground, and she was arrested for Battery on an Officer. The next day the lead detective came to court and testified on Petitioner's behalf that the officer's behavior was inappropriate and Petitioner was released and the charges were dropped. Petitioner also explained that she received another arrest because her boyfriend was drunk and took her car keys and was going to drive. Petitioner testified she could not stop him so she knocked the headlights and windows out of her car to prevent him from driving and ultimately the charges were dropped. Petitioner confirmed at hearing that at least nine of the criminal charges she obtained were either dismissed or dropped and she had not been arrested in over 10 years. Petitioner's credible detailed testimony during the hearing was information that APD did not have the benefit of having while reviewing her application. Petitioner affirmed that she had a July 1999 public assistance fraud case on which adjudication was withheld for her trading food stamps to pay her light bill. DCF failed to ask Petitioner about the case in the request letter with the list of other charges. Petitioner admitted that the public assistance fraud case was the only case in which Petitioner had to make restitution. She paid back the total amount of food stamps she sold and then her food stamps were reinstated. Evelyn Alvarez ("Alvarez"), APD Regional Operations Manager for the Southern Region, made an independent review of Petitioner's Request for Exemption, Petitioner's Exemption Questionnaire, and documentation submitted on December 21, 2016. Among the factors identified by Alvarez as a basis for the recommendation of denial of the exemption was the perception that Petitioner's application was incomplete. Alvarez determined Petitioner did not take responsibility for her arrests or show any remorse. Alvarez testified that APD needs to be able to rely on the answers provided by the applicant in the Exemption Questionnaire to get the information needed to decide whether to grant an exemption. Although she relied on other information gathered as well, what the applicant stated in the Exemption Questionnaire is very important. Alvarez explained that she considered both Petitioner's disqualifying and non-disqualifying offenses, the circumstances surrounding those offenses, the nature of the harm caused to the victim, the history of the applicant since the disqualifying incident, and finally, any other evidence indicating whether the applicant will present a danger to vulnerable APD clients if employment is allowed. Alvarez also testified that she looked for consistency in the applicant's account of events in her Exemption Questionnaire, whether or not the applicant accepted responsibility for her actions and whether the applicant expressed remorse for her prior criminal acts. Alvarez concluded that there were inconsistencies between Petitioner's account of her disqualifying and non-disqualifying offenses compared with those found in the police reports. Alvarez further testified she was concerned that Petitioner had numerous traffic citations. Alvarez explained the citations concerned her because individuals who are granted exemptions would potentially be in positions to transport clients and an applicant that maintains a good driving record demonstrates an ability to ensure the health and safety of clients being served. At hearing, Petitioner testified that her driving record "was not the best." The summary detailed that the 2008 infractions included failure to pay required tolls, improper left, and lack of proof of insurance. Petitioner also had other driving offenses, such as a DWLS and Driver License in 2007 and a safety belt violation in 2006. After her review, Alvarez decided that Petitioner had exhibited a continuing pattern of criminal offenses over an extended period of time, many of which were violent and involved fights, and she concluded Petitioner had not demonstrated rehabilitation. At hearing, Tom Rice ("Rice"), APD Program Administrator for Regional Supports/Licensing, testified that an individual's good character and trustworthiness is important for individuals who provide direct care for APD because service providers are frequently responsible for assisting individuals in making decisions of a financial, medical, and social nature. APD must weigh the benefit against the risk when considering granting an exemption. Rice explained that APD's clients are susceptible to abuse because they are reliant on others to assist with intimate tasks, such as getting dressed, going to the bathroom, feeding, medicine, and funds. Direct service providers need to care and keep clients safe. Rice verified that Petitioner was eligible to work in an APD group home as a CNA. Rice also testified that APD was concerned with Petitioner's failure to disclose details in her accounts regarding her criminal offenses because it calls into question her trustworthiness. He further testified such factors demonstrate a pattern of poor judgment and decision-making and provide cause for APD to question Petitioner's fitness for providing services to the vulnerable individuals for which it is responsible and that is why Petitioner was denied. Findings of Ultimate Fact Upon careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that she is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offenses of resisting an officer with violence to his person and that she will not present a danger to disabled or otherwise vulnerable persons with whom she would have contact if employment in a group home were allowed. Petitioner has shown she is a responsible individual by successfully holding jobs in the health field for approximately 18 years. Her employment has been in positions where she cared for vulnerable persons and no evidence was presented that Petitioner was a danger while doing so. Instead, Petitioner's exemption package mirrors her credible testimony of her previous employment serving as a companion, bathing, feeding, dressing, grooming, taking vital signs, transporting patients to doctor's appointments, and working in a private home, which are personal care services that some direct service providers also supply. Petitioner was honest and forthright about her past and supplied 99 pages detailing her past to comply with DCF's request to complete her application. Petitioner testified convincingly that she has turned her life around. Petitioner's only disqualifying offenses occurred over 40 years ago. Even though she was arrested at least twelve times since then, nine of the charges were dismissed and Petitioner's last criminal arrest was 2002. Petitioner also obtained three certificates after her disqualifying offenses. Petitioner received licensure as a CNA and she has been successfully practicing under her license with an ACHA exemption in the health care field. Some of Petitioner's work has even been with vulnerable adults in both a hospital and nursing home. The undersigned further finds that denial of Petitioner's exemption request would constitute an abuse of discretion. As discussed above, it appears Respondent relied heavily on the initial application submitted, hearsay in the police reports, and traffic infractions, and failed to adequately consider the 99 pages and nine dismissed charges Petitioner provided regarding her rehabilitation. In doing so, Respondent failed to properly evaluate Petitioner's disqualifying offenses having occurred over 40 years ago and the last non-disqualifying criminal arrest being at least 15 years ago and the majority of the charges being dismissed. The evidence also indicates that Petitioner has performed successfully in a healthcare work setting, including some care of vulnerable individuals. Additionally, Petitioner has gone above and beyond to contribute in the community. She volunteers with the homeless and also volunteers with legislators and a mayor, and advocated nationally for a minimum wage increase in the Fight for Fifteen campaign, serving as the spokes-person. In 2015, the White House also extended an invitation to Petitioner to speak because of her advocacy, and Petitioner passed the background check and screening that the secret service conducted. As Petitioner testified at hearing, had she been any type of threat or been dangerous or violent based on her previous arrests, she would not have passed the high security screening and been allowed in the White House to speak. Petitioner also testified she does not have anything to hide. She demonstrated, by credible and very compelling evidence, that she made wrong decisions and took the initiative to turn her life around. For these reasons, it is determined that no reasonable individual, upon fully considering the record in this proceeding could find that Petitioner is not rehabilitated. The concerns expressed by Respondent in formulating its intended action, without the benefit of hearing testimony, particularly with those regarding her untruthfulness and lack of remorse for her actions, were effectively refuted by the credible testimony at hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, enter a final order granting Petitioner, Molita Cunningham's, request for an exemption from disqualification from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of September, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Kurt Eric Ahrendt, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Molita Cunningham 12437 Southwest 220th Street Miami, Florida 33170 (eServed) Jada Williams, Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 335E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Barbara Palmer, Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner James Joseph Richardson has met his burden of proving actual innocence, thereby entitling him to compensation under the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act.
Findings Of Fact On October 25, 1967, Petitioner's wife prepared a breakfast of grits for their seven children. In a separate pot she prepared the children's lunch of beans, gravy, rice, and hogs head meat. She also fried some fresh chicken which she used to make sandwiches for her and Petitioner's lunch. She and Petitioner then left to get a ride to the grove where they worked picking fruit. It was their routine for Petitioner's wife to cook the food. The eldest child, eleven-year-old Betty Jean Bryant, would later serve it to all the children after the Richardsons left for work. It is not clear whether the children actually ate their breakfast grits that day. The school-age children went to school while the younger children remained at home. It was the routine for Petitioner's neighbor Betsy Reese to look after them. Petitioner's family and Betsy Reese and her children lived in the same structure, assumedly similar to a duplex. There was a common porch across the front. There was also a shed in the back yard. The school-age children returned to the home at lunchtime. Reese divided the food in the second pot into seven equal portions, and the children ate lunch. Right after the children returned to school after lunch, they began exhibiting terrible symptoms, such as leaking from their orifices, twitching, and rigidity. Teachers began grabbing the Richardson children and rushing them to the hospital. One of the teachers, knowing there were younger children at home, drove to the Richardson home. Those children were on the shared porch, displaying the same symptoms. Reese was sitting on the porch, holding one of the children. The teacher took them to the hospital. Petitioner and his wife were summoned to the hospital. Six of the children died that same day, and the seventh child died early the next morning. At the hospital, medical personnel did not know what substance was causing the illness and deaths. Sheriff Frank Cline went to the Richardson home and conducted several searches of the home and the shed attempting to find what had poisoned the children. When Petitioner and his wife arrived at the hospital, Cline obtained from Petitioner the key to the refrigerator and searched again. The next morning Reese and Charlie Smith, who was described as the town drunk, found a bag of parathion, a highly- toxic insecticide, in the shed behind the house. Cline and his deputies had searched the shed approximately four times during the day the children became sick and Cline had searched the shed by himself late that night, and no bag of parathion had been seen by them. It was determined that parathion was present in the pot the grits were cooked in, the pot the lunch was cooked in, the frying pan the chicken may have been cooked in, flour, corn meal, sugar, and other substances found in the refrigerator. It was also determined that parathion is what killed the children. Petitioner had a key to the refrigerator as did his wife. Indications are that a third key was left on the refrigerator for the babysitter's use. Petitioner was tried for the first degree murder of the eldest child Betty Jean Bryant and was convicted. The jury did not recommend mercy, and he was sentenced to death. His conviction was reviewed by the Supreme Court of Florida. Richardson v. State, 247 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1971). Petitioner's death sentence was commuted to life when Florida's death penalty was held to be unconstitutional the following year. In October 1988, 21 years after the seven children were murdered, the official file, which had been stolen ten years earlier from the office of the assistant state attorney who had prosecuted Petitioner, appeared in the office of the Governor of the State of Florida. Governor Bob Martinez ordered the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to investigate the disappearance and re-appearance of the file and accompanying information. That investigation resulted in new information and admissions surrounding the circumstances leading to the arrest and conviction of Petitioner. The Governor entered an Executive Order on July 31, 1989, appointing Janet Reno, State Attorney for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, to provide prosecutorial assistance to FDLE. That Executive Order further directed FDLE to continue its investigation into all statements and evidence concerning Petitioner's arrest and conviction and to also investigate any violations of the criminal laws or misconduct by public officials relative to the events surrounding the deaths of the children and the arrest and conviction of Petitioner. On February 13, 1989, another Executive Order, amending the first, was signed by the Governor assigning State Attorney Reno to the Twelfth and Twentieth Judicial Circuits to discharge the duties of the State Attorneys in those Circuits relating to the investigation and prosecution of Petitioner's case. On March 31, 1989, a third Executive Order was signed. It amended the first two and recited that Reno and FDLE had reported their findings to the Governor and that Reno had also advised the Governor that Petitioner had filed a motion for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit. The Executive Order directed Reno to assume and discharge the duties of the State Attorney relating to any post-conviction proceedings involving Petitioner. A fourth Executive Order was then entered amending the first three by adding to Reno's duties consideration of any further prosecution of Petitioner. As a result of the extensive investigations conducted by Reno and FDLE, Reno joined in Petitioner's pending motion for post-conviction relief. Petitioner's request that his conviction and sentence be vacated was granted, and Petitioner was released from prison. Reno also made the decision that Petitioner would not be re-tried for the murder of Betty Jean Bryant and would not be prosecuted for the murders of the six other children. On May 5, 1989, Reno issued a 35-page Nolle Prosse Memorandum explaining in detail the evidence she had reviewed, the conflicting evidence she had considered, the apparent- perjured testimony that had been given at Petitioner's trial, and the conflicting witness statements which the State had before trial but had not disclosed to Petitioner's attorneys despite a court order to do so. The Memorandum discussed additional problems she had encountered because the physical evidence from the trial 21 years earlier had been misplaced or destroyed, a witness had later recanted his trial testimony, and key witnesses had died since the trial had taken place. Further, as a result of the publicity surrounding her investigation a number of persons had come forward claiming to have evidence, but they had never come forward during the initial investigation. Reno and the two Assistant State Attorneys who worked with her on her investigation determined that in evaluating whether Petitioner should be given post-conviction relief and whether Petitioner should be re-tried, they would only consider the files, records, and evidence that existed at the time that Petitioner was tried. They considered the evidence that had not been disclosed to anyone for 21 years to be unreliable. Some of it was also conflicting. She signed the Nolle Prosse Memorandum as did the two Assistant State Attorneys Don L. Horn and Richard L. Shiffrin. At the final hearing in this cause Don Horn testified extensively as to the contents of the Memorandum. Although he, Shiffrin, and Reno had discussed the misconduct they discovered on the part of the Sheriff and the prosecuting attorneys, they knew that the statute of limitations prevented taking action against those public officials, so the Memorandum did not discuss any action to be taken against them. It only considered the evidence against Petitioner. The Memorandum concluded that a "totally inadequate and incomplete investigation" into the deaths of the seven children had been conducted. Obvious leads had not been pursued, inconsistencies were not resolved, and standard investigative procedures had not been followed. The Memorandum further opined that at the time that Petitioner was charged with murder, the State did not have sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. The Memorandum concluded that Petitioner "was probably wrongfully accused" based upon the evidence that existed at the time. Three years later a 260-page Memorandum Opinion prepared by United States Attorney Robert Merkle and indicating a need for further investigation into the 1968 prosecution of Petitioner was presented to the Treasurer of Florida. The Opinion, which was not admitted in evidence, was described as a "scathing indictment" of Reno's investigation. As a result, Governor Lawton Chiles issued a confidential Executive Order on October 16, 1992, appointing State Attorney Reno to further investigate all matters pertaining to or arising from the issues raised in the Opinion involving Petitioner's prosecution. On October 30, 1992, the Governor issued a second Executive Order deleting the provisions of his prior Order requiring that it be sealed and confidential. Assistant State Attorney Richard L. Shiffrin, who participated in Reno's first investigation, and Gertrude M. Novicki, Reno's Chief Assistant for Special Prosecutions, were assigned to conduct this investigation. Both of those Assistant State Attorneys signed the Response of the State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. The Response is not dated but a word-processing notation suggests it may have been issued on or about April 30, 1993. At the final hearing, Novicki testified regarding her Response. Rather than responding to or explaining each of the details set forth in Merkle's Memorandum Opinion, Novicki and Shiffrin re-examined the propriety of both the vacating of the original judgment of guilty and the decision to enter a nolle prosse. In doing so, they reviewed the original prosecution in light of the evidence at trial and of the law as it existed in 1968 and also reviewed the ability to re-prosecute Petitioner in light of the evidence currently available and admissible. The Response concluded that the Order granting Petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction and sentence was supported by the facts and the law and that the decision to enter a nolle prosse reached in 1989 was proper. The Response's summary states that the physical evidence against Petitioner did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the testimonial evidence as to Petitioner's admissions of culpability were of dubious admissibility and value, the evidence of motive was equivocal at best, and the decision to enter a nolle prosse was unquestionably correct. The summary ends as follows: "Whether or not [Petitioner] is guilty of this horrible crime is uncertain. What is certain is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt is lacking." The prior proceedings involving Petitioner and the prior reviews of those proceedings have focused on the criminal law standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard, however, is not applicable to this proceeding. In this proceeding wherein Petitioner is seeking monetary compensation for his wrongful incarceration, Section 961.03, Florida Statutes, requires Petitioner to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he committed neither the act nor the offense that served as the basis for the conviction and incarceration and that he did not aid, abet, or act as an accomplice to a person who committed the act or offense. Further, he must prove his actual innocence by verifiable and substantial evidence in order to meet the definition of wrongfully incarcerated person. Petitioner testified that he did not poison his children, that he did not kill his children, and that he never told anyone that he did. He also testified that he did not aid or assist anyone in poisoning or killing his children. In order to provide verifiable and substantial evidence in support of his testimony that he is innocent, Petitioner has taken two approaches. The first is by relying on the investigation detailed in the 1989 Nolle Prosse Memorandum and the testimony of Don Horn, one of the authors. (In its defense, the State offered the 1993 Response and the testimony of Gertrude Novicki, one of its authors.) In so doing, Petitioner has offered clear and convincing evidence that the investigation leading up to Petitioner’s prosecution and conviction was incomplete. The investigation revealed conflicting evidence about whether Petitioner had obtained life insurance policies on his children the night before they were murdered, which he had not, and whether Petitioner believed that he had. The investigation did not determine how the parathion got into the pots and skillet and various food products in the refrigerator or when. The investigation appeared to focus only on Petitioner as a suspect and not also on others whose involvement was suspicious. Toward the end of the investigation and prior to Petitioner’s criminal trial, the prosecutors wrote memos expressing concern about the weakness of their case and their possible inability to present even a prima facie case. After those memos were written, the Sheriff produced three jailhouse informants to testify that Petitioner admitted to them his crimes. They also gave statements that Petitioner said he thought that Reese did it and gave details of different motives she might have had. Rather than resolving the conflicting statements, the prosecution withheld the conflicting statements from the defense. The Nolle Prosse Memorandum discusses these statements and informants and finds that one of the jailhouse informants recanted his testimony after Petitioner’s trial and one was drunk when he testified. The third one, whose statements were given under circumstances that made them highly doubtful, died before the trial, and his testimony given at the preliminary hearing was given to the jury in the form of five witnesses who testified as to their recollections of his testimony. The informants were not the only ones to provide perjured testimony at Petitioner’s trial; the Sheriff also appears to have done so. A review of the Nolle Prosse Memorandum and the detailed evidence it discusses makes it clear that Petitioner was wrongfully accused based upon the evidence and lack of evidence the prosecution had gathered. It is further clear that Petitioner’s conviction and sentence based upon that insufficient evidence should have been vacated, and they were. It is further clear that re-trying Petitioner would be fruitless because the evidence available 21 years after the murders was insufficient: the physical evidence was missing or destroyed, many of the key witnesses were dead, and the evidence that might have been admissible for a re-trial was conflicting. However, the inability of the State to prove Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt does not prove that Petitioner is actually innocent of committing the murders or aiding in the commission. Petitioner’s second approach to providing verifiable and substantial evidence of his actual innocence is attempting to show that Reese, not the Petitioner, murdered the children. The 1989 investigation showed that, at the time the Richardson children were poisoned, Reese was on parole for killing her second husband with a gun. Although there was also a rumor that she had poisoned her first husband, no evidence was found to support that rumor. Parenthetically, there was also a rumor that Petitioner killed his three other children in Jacksonville, but that was also untrue. Similarly, there was a rumor that Sheriff Cline fathered Reese’s granddaughter and that was why he steered the investigation away from her. The blood tests of all concerned done as part of the 1989 investigation proved that rumor also untrue. Petitioner relies also upon the facts that Reese was the last person in the Richardson home on the day in question, the person who served the children the poisoned lunch, and the person who found the parathion in the shed. Her unconcerned behavior while the Richardson toddlers were exhibiting horrible symptoms on her porch and her lack of concern about whether her children who were playing there might be at risk from whatever was making the Richardson children so sick are suggested to be evidence that she knew why the Richardson children were sick and why her children would not be. It was also suggested that she must have been the murderer since her third husband had gone to Jacksonville with Petitioner and his wife but they had returned without Reese’s husband who never did return to her. Petitioner relies heavily on evidence which he suggests constitutes admissions of her guilt by Reese. The 1988 investigation considered an affidavit by one certified nursing assistant and a taped interview of another, both of whom worked at a nursing home where Reese became a patient in 1986. The affidavit by Belinda Romeo asserts that Romeo asked Reese on more than 100 separate occasions if she killed the seven Richardson children, that Reese replied that she did, and that Reese was competent at the times Romeo asked that question. On the other hand, the transcript of a taped interview of Doris Harris, who was present several times when Romeo questioned Reese, is clearly contrary to that affidavit. Harris states that by the time Reese was admitted to the nursing home, she was incontinent, unable to walk, unable to feed herself, only “half way aware,” unable to say what day or year it was, "back to a child's state," and suffering from Alzheimer’s. When Romeo would ask if she killed the children, she would say that she killed them, say the name Charlie, and then lapse into incoherent mumbling. Harris believed that Reese was saying she killed them because she was the one who fed them the poisoned food, and not because she was the one who put the poison in the food. Reese’s “admissions” are, therefore, ambiguous and not trustworthy. Petitioner also introduced into evidence a 1988 affidavit of Richard H. Barnard, the Chief of Police who began an investigation into the children’s deaths. After he got Reese to admit she was in the Richardson home that day and served the children their lunch, he was removed from the investigation by the “Governor’s office” in a phone call which he believes Sheriff Cline instigated. His affidavit undermines the statements of the jailhouse informants, expresses his concern that Sheriff Cline may have tampered with the jury, and states his opinion that Sheriff Cline framed Petitioner. He concludes with his opinion that Petitioner was innocent and Reese was guilty. The hearsay evidence and suggestions that Reese was guilty of the murders do not constitute verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner’s innocence. Opinion testimony does not constitute verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner's innocence. The Nolle Prosse Memorandum and the Response do not constitute verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner’s innocence. The testimony of Horn and Novicki as to what they considered during their investigations does not constitute verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner’s innocence. Lastly, Petitioner’s own testimony denying his guilt is not verifiable and substantial evidence of his innocence. Simply put, the evidence in this proceeding does not establish Petitioner’s actual innocence. Since Chapter 961, Florida Statutes, does not provide a definition of “actual innocence,” Petitioner argues that the definition should be that based upon the evidence it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him. That definition is found in Supreme Court of the United States and Supreme Court of Florida cases. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995); Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2008); Mills v. State, 786 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2001). Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. All of those cases involved motions for post-conviction relief, not claims for money damages. That definition of actual innocence was likely utilized when Petitioner was granted post-conviction relief by having his conviction and sentence vacated and being released from prison, which is the relief which results from meeting that definition. That definition of actual innocence tests the legal sufficiency of evidence. The Statute regulating this proceeding does not consider legal sufficiency; rather, it considers factual sufficiency by requiring the undersigned to make findings of fact as to Petitioner’s actual innocence if proven by verifiable and substantial evidence. In other words, proof of factual innocence is required. Perhaps the reason the Statute does not contain its own definition of actual innocence is that the Legislature intended the words to have their plain, ordinary meaning. A review of the two investigations of Petitioner’s prosecution clearly shows an absence of evidence proving Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, a review of the two investigations does not show that Petitioner is actually innocent. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proving actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence and, thus, has failed to establish that he is a wrongfully incarcerated person eligible for compensation under the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act. RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION Based on the record in this proceeding and the above Findings of Fact, it is RECOMMENDED that an order be entered by the Circuit Judge determining that Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proving actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence, denying Petitioner’s claim for compensation, and dismissing his Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert I. Barrar, Esquire Law Offices of Ellis Rubin & Robert I. Barrar 6619 South Dixie Highway, No. 311 Miami, Florida 33143 Raul C. De La Heria, Esquire 2100 Coral Way, Suite 500 Miami, Florida 33145 Dennis Nales, Esquire Office of the State Attorney 2071 Ringling Boulevard, Suite 400 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Earl Moreland, Esquire Office of the State Attorney 2071 Ringling Boulevard, Suite 400 Sarasota, Florida 34237
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified correctional officer, while under oath, did make false statements, which she did not believe to be true, in an official proceeding regarding a material matter, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the demeanor and candor of each witness; stipulations by the parties; documentary materials received in evidence; and evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2004), the following relevant and material facts, arrived at impartially and based solely on information presented at the final hearing, are determined: Deputy Marvina K. Johnson was certified by the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), on September 17, 1991; was issued Correctional Certificate Number 62620; and, on June 23, 2000, was issued Instructor Certificate Number 211202. At all times material, Ms. Johnson was employed by the Manatee County Sheriff's Department (Sheriff's Department) until her dismissal in November of 2003. At some time during the month of June 2003, Ms. Johnson met Bruce Straubel in a local gym. Shortly after their initial meeting, the two became romantically involved. This romantic relationship progressed to the point that Mr. Straubel moved into Ms. Johnson's residence; thereafter, they established joint bank accounts and shared housekeeping and household expenses. At all times heretofore, Mr. Straubel was working in the construction industry. The evidence demonstrated that Ms. Johnson did not know and that she was not informed by Mr. Straubel that he was a convicted felon serving five years' probation at the time of their initial meeting in June and throughout the first few months of their relationship. The evidence of record demonstrated that it was not until early August 2003 that Ms. Johnson became aware of Mr. Straubel's criminal past. Sergeant Gaythel Siplin, Ms. Johnson's co-worker, testified that she was invited to Ms. Johnson's residence for a party where she was introduced to Mr. Straubel by Ms. Johnson. Sergeant Siplin, throughout the course of the evening, correctly assumed that Ms. Johnson and Mr. Straubel were seemingly truly romantically involved. From her apparent concern and her 20 plus years as a correctional officer with experiences of potential problems female correctional officers may encounter when involved with males of unknown background, Sergeant Siplin inquired if Ms. Johnson had conducted a background check on Mr. Straubel, to include AIDS testing, credit check, and criminal background check. The answer given, as recalled by Sergeant Siplin, was negative. On another occasion, unidentified in the record but believed by the witness to have been during the month of July 2003, Sergeant Siplin testified that she again advised Ms. Johnson to "check out" Mr. Straubel; meaning do a medical, credit, and criminal background check because in her mind "Mr. Straubel was too good to be true . . . like he fell from heaven." Sergeant Siplin testified that Ms. Johnson told her on or about the first of August that "Bruce" was involved in construction and building houses and that he was involved in a situation where he was charged with false imprisonment. Sergeant Siplin knew for a fact that false imprisonment is a violent offense, and she told Ms. Johnson to check into Mr. Straubel a little bit further. Ms. Johnson was not certified to make inquiries through use of the Department of Law Enforcement's NCIC computer connection to ascertain the identity of a person with a felony conviction. According to Sergeant Williams, information about Mr. Straubel was available to Ms. Johnson through the internet by connecting to the Department of Correction's website. Sergeant Siplin related her "concerns about Ms. Johnson's relationship with Mr. Straubel" to other members of the Sheriff's Department. This "concern" founded its way into the Internal Affairs (IA) Office during August 2003. During a conversation between Lieutenant Smalls and an unnamed probation officer, the lieutenant was told that "one probationer [unnamed] was seeing a fellow employee." On or about August 19, 2003, Lieutenant Smalls met with and informed Captain Williams of the information taken from an unidentified probation officer. Captain Williams checked and affirmed that Mr. Straubel was a convicted felon. The IA investigation team, consisting of Major Potts, Captain Williams, Captain Smith, Lieutenant Smalls, and Carolyn Smith, summoned Ms. Johnson into the IA office and asked whether she knew Mr. Straubel was a convicted felon, to which Ms. Johnson answered "No." Not withstanding Ms. Johnson's denial of "knowledge that Mr. Straubel was a convicted felon," she was told by a [unnamed] superior officer of the Sheriff's Department to "cease and desist her relationship or any other contact with Mr. Straubel because of his criminal history." Ms. Johnson gave undisputed testimony that during her interview, her superior officer told her, "[I]f you had married him all of this would not be in play, you should have married him." Ms. Johnson complied with the "cease and desist her relationship or any other contact with Mr. Straubel" order of her superior officer from August 19, 2003, until sometime beginning in late October or early November 2003. Ms. Johnson gave undisputed testimony that she paid for Mr. Straubel to move into another living facility, establishing separate residence. She deposited money into his bank account and made a valid effort to "discontinue seeing Mr. Straubel." However, her efforts failed, and she first began calling Mr. Straubel; the repeated calls led to meetings outside her home; the meetings outside her home led to her going to his motel for overnight visits; the overnight motel visits led to Mr. Straubel coming over and spending nights at her home. Sergeant William Diamond testified that on or about November 14, 2003, Mr. Straubel called IA and asked to meet and did meet with IA members on or about November 17, 2003. According to Sergeant Diamond, during the meeting, Mr. Straubel acknowledged that he and Ms. Johnson were still "having an affair." Although available, Mr. Straubel did not testify. Because IA got its information from a probation officer, and, thereafter, the probationer presumably called IA and volunteered to meet with IA, the logical and most reasonable assumption is that the convicted felon, Mr. Straubel, was prompted by his probation officer to contact IA. However, the Commission chose not to call Mr. Straubel to testify. Therefore, testimony of Sergeant Diamond, purporting to be "statements made by Mr. Straubel to IA on or about November 17, 2003," which are hearsay upon hearsay statements, is insufficient to establish the truth of the matter asserted therein, is insufficient to establish the truth of the allegations sought to be established, and is, therefore, rejected by the undersigned. On November 24, 2003, Ms. Johnson was called in by IA and questioned regarding her knowledge of Mr. Straubel and his criminal history and her relationship with him. There was testimony regarding "dates phone calls were made to and from Respondent's phone"; however, there is no written evidence of record of the alleged phone calls or the dates they were made, if made. There was testimony regarding some questions asked of Ms. Johnson by the IA team members regarding motel rental payments and bank deposits. Again, there is no written evidence of record of the motel rental payment, or bank deposit slips, etc., that was produced by Petitioner. Accordingly, the testimony regarding or relating to documentation not of record is insufficient alone to establish a firm belief as to the truth of the matter sought to be established. Ms. Johnson never denied not seeing Mr. Straubel. When questioned whether she had "seen Mr. Straubel" after the August 19, 2003, order to cease and desist her relationship with Mr. Straubel, Ms. Johnson answered "no" but continued her answer to explained her temporary successful attempt to discontinue her relationship and her subsequent relapse back into the relationship with Mr. Straubel, after passage of time. During questioning by IA, Ms. Johnson admitted paying Mr. Straubel's motel bill after he moved out of her residence; she acknowledged that she was aware that in his past Mr. Straubel had gotten into "some trouble"; but she denied knowing, at that time, his trouble was a felony conviction. After IA presented her unidentified documentation that Mr. Straubel was a convicted felon, Ms. Johnson accepted IA's documentation as evidence of Ms. Straubel's criminal background. Her mere acknowledgement of the documentation presented to her by IA does not establish, as fact, she had knowledge of this information prior to IA's interrogation. Mr. Strabuel was not called to testify, and the tape recording of his earlier interview with IA was not introduced into evidence. The witnesses' recollection, made from repeated references to summation notes of tapes and other documents not in evidence, purporting to be statements Mr. Straubel voluntarily made to IA about what Mr. Straubel may or may not have told Ms. Johnson in June 2003, is hearsay upon hearsay and not acceptable as evidence to prove the truth sought to be established. For that reason this testimony is rejected in toto. The Sheriff's Department terminated Ms. Johnson's employment at the conclusion of the IA investigation, the exact month and date are not in evidence of record. After her termination by the Sheriff's Department, Ms. Johnson entered college and, as of this proceeding, had earned 46 credits toward her college degree. Subsequent to the close of this proceeding Ms. Johnson and Mr. Straubel were married on August 16, 2004, in Manatee County, Florida. The evidence of record is neither clear nor convincing that on November 24, 2003, while under oath Ms. Johnson intentionally made a false statement(s), which she did not believe to be true. The testimony of Sergeant Diamond alone, based upon summation notes purportedly taken from two tape recordings of an interview between Lieutenant Smalls and Mr. Straubel and three tape recordings purportedly containing interviews with Captain Smith, Sergeant Siplin, Deputy Eleanor Mays and Ms. Johnson, is neither clear nor convincing when transcription summaries of the tape recordings and not the tape recordings themselves where introduced into evidence. There is no evidence of record of the specific question(s) asked Ms. Johnson and no evidence of record of her specific answer to each question regarding her relationship with Mr. Straubel after August 19, 2003. The evidence of record regarding the November 24, 2003, interrogation episode, viewed most favorably, is not clear. When questioned by the IA committee and/or members regarding specific bills she allegedly paid, phone calls she allegedly made, and bank deposits she allegedly made; those phone bills, telephone logs, and bank deposit slips are not of record. Accordingly, an objective evaluation of Ms. Johnson's answer to each question regarding each specific document can not be made. Thus, Ms. Johnson's knowledge at the time each answer was given, her intention when an answer was given to a specific question, and whether her answer was true or false, can not be objectively made or reasonably inferred from the nonspecific summation testimony of Sergeant Diamond. Assuming Sergeant Diamond's entire testimony was accurate, the ambiguity created by the absence of dated documents and the absence of accurate transcripts of the several tape recordings upon which he based his testimony must be resolved in favor of Ms. Johnson. Other than the faulty memory of Sergeant Diamond, refreshed from an unauthenticated 19-page summation report, there is no substantial and specific evidence of all specific questions asked of Ms. Johnson or the specific answer to each question given under oath by Ms. Johnson. Sergeant Diamond's testimony consisted primarily of debatable expressions announced prospectively that may result in the loss of a valuable license. Viewed most favorably, the testimony of Sergeant Diamond, taken from a 19-page unauthenticated summation report of tape recordings and alleged confessions and admissions by other parties, is lacking in "specificity" and fails to produce a firm belief, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Ms. Johnson's denials of essential elements in the Administrative complaint, even if unbelievable, does not prove the accusations. The Commission failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that on or about November 24, 2003, Ms. Johnson, did unlawfully make a false statement, which she did not believe to be true, under oath administered by Sergeant Diamond and Investigator Nancy Schoff in an official proceeding, to wit: internal investigation, in regard to a material matter as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Marvina K. Johnson. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 30th day of November, 2004.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that Petitioner, Gary N. Piccirillo, was afforded a presumptive parole release date interview on May 14, 1982. Thereafter, on June 9, 1982, Respondent, Florida Parole and Probation Commission (FPPC), considered Petitioner's presumptive parole release date (PPRD) and set it for September 30, 1986. On June 28, 1982, Petitioner sought review of his established PPRD pursuant to Rule 23-21.12, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 947.173, Florida Statutes. In November 1983, a special parole interview was granted Petitioner, but the Commission at that hearing declined to change or modify Petitioner's PPRD. Petitioner's next biennial interview for review of his PPRD is scheduled for September 1984. However, Petitioner is currently scheduled to be released from confinement in either September or October 1984, if he is given credit for all earned gain time. Petitioner questions that portion of the rule which provides for only one review of the Commission action establishing or changing the PPRD, but apparently fails to recognize that portion which also provides for subsequent (biennial, special, or effective) establishments of PPRD, which tend to ensure at least periodic reviews of the PPRD. Petitioner attacks the validity of the rule, as amended on October 1, 1982, as it pertains to Sections (1)(e) and (2). He contends that (1)(e), which calls for verification of written or printed evidence provided directly by the inmate and notification to the proper state attorney if any of this evidence is invalid because it constitutes a threat of a penalty, which tends to inhibit the average inmate from presenting evidence he might otherwise present. Petitioner does not question the propriety of reporting false information, only the inclusion of a basis for doing so within the rule. Petitioner also contends that that portion of Paragraph (2) of the rule which provides that the Respondent will not address matters within certain categories, unless new factual information came into existence after the initial interview, is unfair, unduly restrictive, and places an unreasonable burden on prisoners who would be unprepared psychologically to present all their information at the initial interview in its best light. Petitioner contends that after the newness of incarceration wears off and the individual is more comfortable with the system, he would be better prepared to present this information again.
