Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A. Filed January 21, 2011 10:24 AM Division of Administrative Hearings DCA Order No. DCA11-GM-007
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies haye been furnished by U.S. Mail or Electronic May to each of the persons listed below on this day of January, 2011. / a Paula Ford Agency Clerk By U.S. Mail The Honorable Bram D. E. Canter Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 By Electronic Mail Amy Taylor Petrick, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Palm Beach County 300 North Dixie Highway, Suite 359 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Gary K. Hunter, Esquire Vinette D. Godelia, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 33301 Richard Grosso, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell, Esquire Everglades Law Center, Inc. Shepard Broad Law Center 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 DCA Order No. DCA11-GM-007
Findings Of Fact On or about March 3, 1976, the Board served its Administrative Complaint upon the Licensee. On May 18, 1976 the Licensee filed its Answer to the Administrative Complaint. The final hearing in this case was scheduled by Notice dated April 13, 1976, and was rescheduled by Notice dated May 27, 1976. John C. Ledbetter holds Certified General Contractor's License No. CG C5281 issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The Licensee Ledbetter has been a certified contractor at all times relevant to this proceeding. The Licensee was the co-developer of a condominium project known as Ocean Palm Villas South or Ocean Palms Riverfront Condominium. Gerald M. Hadley, Sr., a certified contractor was initially listed as the general contractor for the project. Later Neil Wayne Smith was designated the general contractor. Smith was discharged as the general contractor, and by letter dated June 11, 1973 the Licensee notified the North Peninsular Zoning Commission that he would be substituted as the general contractor. Shortly thereafter Gerald M. Hadley was again designated the general contractor, and the change was acknowledged by the forth Peninsular Zoning Commission by letter dated August 28, 1973. Construction on Ocean Palm Villas South did not commence until after August 28, 1973. No construction was undertaken during the time that Ledbetter was designated as the general contractor. The general contractor was responsible for installation of the walls in Ocean Palm Villas South. A subcontractor was utilized to install the dry wall, but the wall construction was supervised by the general contractor. The original plans called for use of 5/8" thick gypsum wallboard. The wall units were to be installed in the manner depicted in Board Exhibit 5. The gypsum was to be nailed on either side of 4" studs, with insulating material laid between the studs. 5/8" gypsum was not available to the general contractor. 1/2" gypsum wallboard was utilized. A new wall assembly was planned. With this assembly gypsum wallboard was nailed to studs, but the wallboard on the other side of the wall was nailed to alternately interspaced studs. Insulating material was woven between the interspaced studs. (See: Board Exhibit 3). The decision to use this assembly was made by Gerald A. Hadley, a labor foreman. Hadley's father was the general contractor, and was consulted in making the decision. A Mr. Rasmussen, the building inspector, was consulted about the wall assembly, and he gave his approval. At the time that construction was under way on the Ocean Palm Villas South project, the 1965 Edition with Revisions of the Southern Standard Building Code was in effect in the North Peninsular Zoning District of Volusia County. The Ocean Palm Villas South project lied within that district. The wall assembly utilized by the general contractor does not precisely follow any of the assemblies set out as appropriate in the code. The wall assembly utilized does, however, meet the one hour fire resistance standard required by the code. There was no evidence presented at the hearing from which it could be concluded that the Licensee Ledbetter had any knowledge of the wall assembly utilized in this project other than what was set out in the original plans. Ledbetter was not the contractor for the project when the assembly was constructed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is licensed by the Florida State Board of Nursing as a Licensed Practical Nurse. On or about January 2, 1979, the Respondent and Linda Sue Hilton, another Licensed Practical Nurse, resided together as roommates in an apartment in the town of Indian Harbor Beach, Florida. They were both at that time employed as Licensed Practical Nurses at the Holmes Regional Medical Center, which is also known as Brevard Hospital. On the evening of January 2, Respondent was the victim of a knife attack by an unknown assailant. Respondent was taken to the hospital accompanied by Linda Sue Hilton. The police were notified, and Stephen D. Hand, a detective employed by the City of Indian Harbor Beach Police Department, conducted the investigation. He came to the Respondent`s apartment on the night of January 2. Two other police officers were already at the scene, and the apartment door was open. He observed a towel full of blood on the couch in the living room and one on the floor in the bathroom of the apartment. He entered the bathroom and found syringes and various pills. There was a trail of blood leading into one bedroom. He followed the trail, and found additional pills in the bedroom, and several small plants which were later identified as cannabis sativa on the window sill. On his way out of that bedroom he observed through the open door of another bedroom several pills on a dresser. He seized all of the pills and the cannabis sativa plants. He also seized from the living room of the apartment a pipe, a smoking device called a "bong", and cigarette rolling papers. Residue of cannabis sativa was later identified in the Pipe. At the time he conducted this investigation, Detective Hand was 22 years old and had been employed as a detective for only a few months. He is the only, and the first detective employed by the Indian Harbor Beach Police Department. At no time during the investigation did he obtain a search warrant, despite the fact that he observed drugs which he thought might be illicit, and despite the fact that he had ample opportunity to secure the premises and obtain a search warrant. No criminal charges were ever brought against the Respondent, or against Linda Sue Hilton. The drugs which Detective Hand seized were turned over to the Holmes Regional Medical Center. On January 12, 1979, the Director of Nursing at Holmes Regional Medical Center, Sally A. Taylor, confronted the Respondent and Hilton with the drugs that had been seized from their apartment. The Respondent told her that some of the pills had been obtained by prescription, and that some were not prescription drugs. The Respondent admitted that she had taken some Surfak, a non- prescription drug which is also a a controlled substance, from the hospital. Both the Respondent and Hilton admitted to taking some used syringes home from the hospital. The Respondent and Hilton told Miss Taylor that the drugs were taken inadvertently . Taylor testified at the hearing that they did not tell her the drugs were taken inadvertently, and that she felt the Respondent and Hilton admitted to stealing the drugs. The testimony of the witness Taylor is in conflict with testimony that the witness had given earlier at a deposition. The deposition was received in evidence as Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. The testimony is also contrary to the testimony of Virginia Bixby, the Assistant Director of Nursing at Holmes Regional Medical Center, who was present during the interview. The testimony of the witness Taylor that the Respondent and Hilton admitted to taking the drugs home other than through a mistake is not creditable. There is no competent evidence in the record in this case from which it could be concluded that any drugs were taken from the hospital other than inadvertently. The testimony in this matter does not reveal which of the seized drugs were taken from the bathroom, and which were seized from which of the two bedrooms. Neither does the testimony reveal which of the Respondents used which bedroom. Detective Hand testified that he recalled either McDonald or Hilton telling him at a later date that the bedroom where the cannabis sativa was found was Respondent's bedroom. His memory in this regard was, however, quite blurred, and is not worthy of reliance. There is no competent evidence in this matter from which it could be concluded that the Respondent was in possession of any particular combination of the pills and drugs seized from her apartment, or that Hilton was in possession of any of them. Indeed, it was not established whether other persons than the Respondent and Hilton occupied the apartment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the complaint filed against the Respondent, Kathie Verlene McDonald. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jerrold A. Bross, Esquire MITCHELL, LITUS, BROSS, & HENDERSON 2323 S. Washington Avenue Suite 117 Titusville, Florida 32780 Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Geraldine B. Johnson Investigation & Licensing Coordinator Florida State Board of Nursing 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF NURSING IN THE MATTER OF: Kathie Verlene McDonald 201 Harbor City Parkway Apt. F331 CASE NO. 79-416 Indian Harbor Beach, Florida 32939 As a Licensed Practical Nurse License Number 0468641 /
The Issue Whether the respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated December 19, 1995, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission is the state agency responsible for certifying and revoking the certification of correctional officers. Section 943.12(3), Florida Statutes. Ms. Davis was certified by the Commission on May 18, 1993, and was issued Corrections Certificate Number 137735. She is currently certified as a corrections officer. Incident at the Royal Palm Beach K-Mart. In the Administrative Complaint, the Commission charged that On or about September 16, 1994, the Respondent, Dorothy B. Davis, did knowingly obtain, use, or did endeavor to obtain or to use a bread maker and a breadmixer of the value of $300.00 or more, the property of K-Mart, with the intent to either temporarily or permanently deprive the owner of a right to the property to her own use. On the morning of September 16, 1994, Timothy Meyers, a K-Mart employee of 16 years, was working as manager of the Royal Palm Beach K-Mart. Mr. Meyers observed Ms. Davis in the kitchen appliance aisle of the store with a shopping cart containing a Black and Decker bread maker and a Kitchen Aide mixer. The bread maker was priced at about $160.00 and the mixer at about $200.00. Moments later, Mr. Meyers observed another woman and a man push a shopping cart into the kitchen appliance aisle and, without looking at the various models available, put into their cart the same model Black and Decker bread maker and the same model Kitchen Aide mixer that Ms. Davis had in her cart. Mr. Meyers found it unusual that a shopper would choose these items without looking at the prices or at the other models available because the items were so expensive. Consequently, he followed the couple to the front of the store, where he observed them pay for the two items with cash. Mr. Meyers observed the couple leave the store by the front exit and put the bread maker and the mixer into a blue Ford Bronco. The man handed the woman what appeared to be the sales receipt for the bread maker and the mixer, and he then got into the Bronco and drove to the west side of the shopping center parking lot. Mr. Meyers observed the woman return to the store. She located Ms. Davis and handed her a piece of paper which Mr. Meyers believed was the receipt for the bread maker and the mixer. Mr. Meyers observed Ms. Davis push the cart containing the Black and Decker bread maker and the Kitchen Aide mixer toward the garden center, which is located on the east side of the store and has a separate exit and check-out register. He asked another store employee to follow Ms. Davis, and he went out the front exit to a location where he could observe the garden center exit but could neither see inside the garden center nor be seen by someone inside the store. When Mr. Meyers saw Ms. Davis push the cart containing the bread maker and the mixer through the garden center exit and onto the ramp leading into the parking lot, he stepped out and stopped her. He asked her if she had paid for the items in her cart at the front register, and she said yes and handed him a receipt for items of the same make and model as those she had in her cart. Mr. Meyers looked at the receipt, told Ms. Davis that she had not paid for the items, and told the cashier in the garden center to call the police. At this point, Ms. Davis left the cart on the sidewalk and walked away. Although Mr. Meyers told her to stop, she continued walking until she reached the Taco Bell restaurant located on the east side of the parking lot, about two hundred feet from the K-Mart store, where she waited until the police arrived. The K-Mart cash register detail tapes, which are the records of every transaction at the store, were checked and showed that, on the morning of September 16, 1994, only one Black and Decker bread maker and one Kitchen Aide mixer were sold. The evidence presented is clear and convincing that, on September 16, 1994, Ms. Davis took property belonging to K-Mart out of the store without paying for it. The property was valued at more than $300. These acts fall within the definition of grand theft found in section 812.014(1) and (2)(c)1, Florida Statutes, which constitutes a third degree felony pursuant to section 812.014(2)(c)1. Incidents involving Sandra Carey. In its Administrative Complaint, the Commission alleged that On or about October 18, 1994, Respondent, Dorothy B. Davis, did unlawfully commit a battery upon Sandra Carey, by actually touching or striking her or intentionally causing bodily harm to her against her will. On or about October 26, 1994, Respondent, Dorothy B. Davis, did unlaw- fully commit an assault upon Sandra Carey, by threatening by word or act to do violence to said person, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and by doing an act which created a well- founded fear in Sandra Carey that said violence was imminent, by swerving toward her with deadly weapon, to wit: a motor vehicle. On or between October 20 and October 26, 1994, Respondent Dorothy B. Davis, did unlawfully commit an assault upon Sandra Carey, by threatening by word or act to do violence to said person, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and by doing an act which created a well-founded fear in Sandra Carey that said violence was imminent, by throwing at her or in her direction a deadly weapon, to wit: beer bottles. On or between October 20 and October 26, 1994, Respondent Dorothy B. Davis, did knowingly use intimidation or physical force, threats, or attempts thereto, or offered pecuniary benefit or gain to Sandra Carey with intent to influence that person’s testimony or to cause or induce that person to withhold testimony from an official proceeding or be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process. On or between October 20 and October 26, 1994, Respondent, Dorothy B. Davis, did unlawfully, with intent to place Sandra Carey in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, willfully and maliciously, follow or harass said person and make a credible threat, by assaulting her with a motor vehicle, throwing beer bottles at her, and/or making verbal threats of bodily harm, which caused said person substantial emotional distress and served no legitimate purpose. (The allegations in the Administrative Complaint are set out in paragraph form for clarity.) On October 18, 1994, in Belle Glade, Florida, a fight took place in or near a grocery store parking lot in the 400 block of Southwest Avenue B Place between an unidentified man and a woman named Shirkia Webb. Ms. Webb was apparently not the winner of this fight, and the fight apparently ended when Ms. Webb was knocked to the ground. Ms. Davis drove into the parking lot at about the time Ms. Webb was knocked to the ground. She was driving her Ford Bronco, and her children, including her seven- month-old baby, were in the back seat. When Ms. Davis stopped the car and opened the door, Ms. Webb ran over to her and began talking to her. Ms. Davis then left her children in the vehicle and walked into the grocery store, leaving the keys in the ignition. While Ms. Davis was in the grocery store, Ms. Webb got into the Bronco and ran it into the vehicle owned by the unidentified man with whom she had been fighting. This vehicle was apparently parked in the grocery store parking lot at the time. When Ms. Davis came out of the grocery store, a crowd of people had gathered. She saw that her Bronco had been involved in an accident, and she learned that Ms. Webb had been driving the vehicle. She spoke with one of the police officers on the scene and told him that Ms. Webb had stolen her Bronco with her children inside. She later filed grand theft charges against Ms. Webb. Ms. Carey either overheard Ms. Davis telling the police officer that Ms. Webb had stolen her Bronco or someone told Ms. Carey that Ms. Davis had done so. Ms. Carey then went to one of the police officers and told him that Ms. Davis had given Ms. Webb her Bronco knowing that Ms. Webb intended to use it to hit the man’s vehicle. Someone in the crowd told Ms. Davis what Ms. Carey told the police officers. Ms. Davis was upset at the time because her children were in the Bronco when Ms. Webb hit the other vehicle. When she learned that Ms. Carey told the police that she had given Ms. Webb permission to drive the Bronco, she rushed up to Ms. Carey and struck her in the chest, yelling at her to stop telling lies. This incident was observed by several police officers, and Ms. Davis does not deny that she struck Ms. Carey on this occasion. On October 20, 1994, Ms. Davis was driving her Bronco down 5th Street in Belle Glade, and she speeded up when she saw Ms. Carey crossing the street ahead of her. Ms. Carey was carrying her child, whom she had just picked up from the baby sitter, and she hurried across the street because she believed Ms. Davis would hit her if she did not move out of the way of the Bronco. Ms. Carey reported this incident to the police on October 20. In a second incident, Ms. Carey was at the Glades Wash House when Ms. Davis pulled up in her Bronco and told Ms. Carey she was going to “mess her up” for telling the police that she had given Ms. Webb permission to drive her Bronco during the altercation which took place on October Ms. Carey reported this incident to the police on October 21, 1994. On October 26, 1994, Ms. Davis was driving her Bronco on 4th Street in Belle Glade and she swerved toward Ms. Carey as she was walking along the side of the road. Ms. Carey moved out of the way to avoid being hit; Ms. Davis was laughing as she drove past Ms. Carey. Ms. Carey reported this incident to the police on October 26, 1994. Ms. Carey feared that Ms. Davis would hurt her or her baby, and she experienced some emotional distress until after the October 26 incident. After this incident, she did not think about it anymore and went on with her life because she had no further contact or problem with Ms. Davis. The evidence presented is clear and convincing that Ms. Davis struck Ms. Carey in the chest on October 18, 1994. This act falls within the definition of battery found in section 784.03(1), Florida Statutes, which constitutes a first degree misdemeanor pursuant to section 784.03(2). The evidence presented is clear and convincing that Ms. Davis threatened Ms. Carey with bodily harm both by trying to run her down on the street on October 20 and October 26 and by her words at the wash house on October These threats fall within the definition of assault found in section 784.011(1), Florida Statutes, which constitutes a second degree misdemeanor pursuant to section 784.011(2).1
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, issue a final order finding that Dorothy B. Davis has failed to maintain good moral character and revoking her certification as a corrections officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1997.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent. The Respondent, Charles Polk, served as the President of Daytona Beach Community College from 1974 to 1990. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk resigned as President of Daytona Beach Community College in 1990. Mr. Polk's Purchase of Real Estate from Anargyros N. Xepapas. In November, 1985, Mr. Polk and his wife purchased a life estate and one-half interest in a condominium unit from Anargyros N. Xepapas. Mr. Xepapas owned the other one-half interest in the condominium unit. [Stipulated Fact.] The purchase price of the life estate and one-half interest in the condominium unit was $150,000.00. [Stipulated Fact.] The weight of the evidence failed to prove that this price was not the fair market value or that the transaction was not an arms-length transaction. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Polk and his wife were required to pay $30,000.00 immediately. They subsequently executed and delivered to Mr. Xepapas a note and mortgage for the remaining $120,000.00. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk was a mortgagor and Mr. Xepapas was a mortgagee. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Polk was required to pay maintenance fees of approximately $5,000.00 per year, taxes, insurance and all other expenses of the unit, which totaled approximately $14,000.00 per year. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas agreed to maintain the payments on the first mortgage. [Stipulated Fact.] Following the closing, Mr. Polk paid Mr. Xepapas an additional $60,000.00 on the mortgage, reducing the principal balance to $60,000.00. [Stipulated Fact.] A warranty deed was provided to Mr. Polk for the purchase of the property. [Stipulated Fact.] Neither the deed nor the mortgage were recorded. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk and his wife used the condominium as their residence. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas action in selling the condominium to Mr. Polk and his wife was a business transaction. Mr. Xepapas. Mr. Xepapas is an architect and developer who designs, builds, and sells property in the Daytona Beach area. [Stipulated Fact.] At the time Mr. Polk purchased the one-half interest in the condominium unit from Mr. Xepapas, Mr. Xepapas was the owner of the condominium building in which the unit was located. [Stipulated Fact.] In addition to being the owner of the condominium building at issue, Mr. Xepapas was the architect, developer and contractor for the condominium and for other condominium buildings in the areas. Mr. Xepapas was trying to sell the condominium units as part of his business because of cash-flow problems. [Stipulated Fact.] The condominium sales market was "soft" and Mr. Xepapas was trying to eliminate the carrying costs for unsold units. Mr. Xepapas sold a total of four condominium units pursuant to an arrangement similar to the arrangement by which he sold the condominium unit to Mr. Polk. Mr. Xepapas had made offers to sell one-half interests in condominium units to various other persons besides Mr. Polk. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas was a sole proprietor. He entered into his relationship with Mr. Polk in his capacity as a sole proprietor. Mr. Xepapas has known Mr. Polk for ten to fifteen years and considers himself a friend of Mr. Polk. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas' Business with Daytona Beach Community College. In 1987, the Board of Trustees of the Daytona Beach Community College decided to expand the College's educational facilities by obtaining a new center in the Deltona area. [Stipulated Fact.] In September, 1987, the Board of Trustees instructed staff to develop a request for proposal for the design and construction of the facility which would be leased to the College. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk was involved to some extent in the decision as to whether the new center should be purchased or constructed, and whether it should be acquired through a long-term lease/purchase agreement. In response to the advertisement of the request for proposal in September, 1988, Mr. Xepapas submitted a proposal. [Stipulated Fact.] There were a total of nine persons or businesses that responded to the request for proposal for the Deltona facility. Mr. Polk knew that Mr. Xepapas had picked up a bid proposal package and, therefore, believed that Mr. Xepapas would submit a proposal. Mr. Polk appointed the committee which reviewed the proposals. This committee ultimately narrowed the acceptable proposals to two, including Mr. Xepapas, and directed that those two proposers submit final proposals. In January, 1989, Mr. Xepapas, in his capacity as a sole proprietor, was the successful bidder on the contract; however, there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Polk abused his position in order to ensure this result. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas and Mr. and Mrs. Polk were co-owners of the condominium prior to and at the time that Mr. Xepapas was awarded the Daytona Beach Community College contract. Ultimately, Mr. Xepapas was not able to fulfill his obligations under the contract with Daytona Beach Community College. Although the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Polk asserted any influence over the decision to award the contract to Mr. Xepapas, Mr. Polk was involved to some small degree in the award of the contract to Mr. Xepapas. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Polk disclosed his co-ownership of the condominium with Mr. Xepapas to the Board of Trustees of the Daytona Beach Community College, that he refused to participate in any way in the bidding process or that he attempted to take the more drastic step of severing his relationship with Mr. Xepapas while the bidding process was going on. In May, 1989, Mr. and Mrs. Polk ultimately quit claim deeded the property to Mr. Xepapas. The evidence failed to prove why. They, therefore, lost their investment in the property. Mr. Polk also resigned as President of Daytona Beach Community College as a result of the allegations concerning his relationship with Mr. Xepapas.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report finding that the Respondent, Charles Polk, violated Section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Complaint No. 89-80. It is further RECOMMENDED that Mr. Polk be subjected to public censure and reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Advocate's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3-11. 3 13. 4 14-16. 5 16 and 18. 6 4, 12 and 19-20. 7 Hereby accepted. 8 3, 21, 27-28 and 30. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-2. 2 13. 3 3, 11 and 14. 4 20. 5 16. 6 4 and 17-18. 7 5 and 8-9. 8 6-7. 9 21. 10 22. 11 24. 12 26 and hereby accepted. See 23, 27 and 30. 13 27 and 30. COPIES FURNISHED: Virlindia Doss Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 David A. Monaco, Esquire Post Office Box 15200 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Bonnie J. Williams Executive Director Commission on Ethics The Capitol, Room 2105 Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary ace ion against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact On and after June 19, 1985, respondent Mack T. Short has been certified as a law enforcement officer, holding certificate No. 14-85-502-05. Two years ago, when, like respondent, he worked at the Florida State Prison as a correctional officer, Guy William Carstens "usually had some" (T. 84) marijuana with him. Messers. Carstens and Short "carpooled" (T. 83) to and from work in the spring of 1987. On "a couple of occasions after work," (T. 84) in April or May of that year, Mr. Short accepted Mr. Carstens's offer to share a pipe or cigarette filled with marijuana. All told, in the course of a year or so, the two men smoked marijuana together five or ten times. T. 88,92. Dale D. Farrow, another correctional officer at the Florida State Prison who bought marijuana from Mr. Carstens periodically over a year's time and regularly smoked it, grew apprehensive of finding himself "up for criminal charges possibly" (T. 80) when he learned from Mr. Carstens that an inmate had threatened to turn Mr. Carstens in, after a $10,000 marijuana transaction went sour. In fact, the inmate did report the drug deal he had with Mr. Carstens to prison authorities, but they did nothing about it. After speaking to the inmate, Mr. Farrow, who has worked at Florida State Prison as a correctional officer for more than seven years, contacted the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), informing personnel there that Mr. Carstens "was dealing in narcotics and that several other correctional officers were buying narcotics from him and using narcotics." T. 16. FDLE passed this information on to the Inspector General's Office within the Department of Corrections. When Mr. Carstens was eventually apprehended, arresting officers found more than a pound of marijuana in the trunk of his car. At one time Mr. Carstens Stored marijuana in a shed behind the house respondent shared with his wife and small child. Mr. Short, who had made the shed available to him as storage for two bucket seats and some motorcycle parts, was apparently unaware of any marijuana in the shed. He was not home when Mr. Farrow saw Mr. Carstens unlock the shed door, enter and remove a sizable quantity of marijuana After his arrest, Mr. Carstens, who was Promised more lenient treatment if he implicated others, named respondent (among Several other correctional officers) as a drug offender. Convicted of Possession (but not distribution despite, e.g. testimony under oath in the present case that he did distribute), Mr. Carstens was placed on five years' probation. Mr. Farrow, who, like respondent, was never Prosecuted criminally, continues to work as a guard at Florida State Prison. There was no indication that Petitioner intends to take any action affecting Mr. Farrow's certification as a law enforcement officer.
Recommendation Particularly in light of the treatment Petitioner has accorded Mr. Farrow, whose moral character the evidence called at least as clearly into question as respondent's, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner reprimand the respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 88-5249 Petitioners Proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 7, 10, 11, 13, and 14 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioners Proposed findings of fact Nos. 8, 9, and 12 were not convincingly established by credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 628 Alachua, FL 32615 Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 88-5249 CJSTC CASE NO. C-1390 MACK T. SHORT, Certificate Number 14-85-502-05. Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1973, Mr. and Mrs. Delmar D. Carter purchased the Buccaneer Motel and Woodside Apartments [the motel] from C.E.K., Inc., whom respondents represented in the sale. Respondents agreed to accept less from C.E.K., Inc., as their commission on the sale, that they might have otherwise, because the Carters agreed to give respondents the exclusive right to resell the motel for a period of five years. Two years after they purchased the motel, the Carters asked O.B. Linkous to try to sell the motel, but the Carters sell held the motel when the resale agreement expired in late 1978. One of the obligations assumed by the Carters in exchange for the motel was secured by a mortgage that C.E.K., Inc., had executed in favor of O.B. Linkous Realty, Inc., on December 14, 1972. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. This assumed obligation required the Carters to make certain monthly payments to the corporate respondent including a payment of $862.19 on January 1, 1979. Under the mortgage agreement, the entire principal (originally $88,247.93) would become due if a "default continue for a space of 30 days." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. On January 25, 1979, Mr. Carter delivered to Mr. Linkous a check in the amount of $862.19, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, as payment of the amount due on January 1, 1979. When he handed the check to respondent Linkous, Mr. Carter told him that the funds in the account on which the check was drawn were insufficient for the drawee to pay the check, but that he would deposit sufficient funds on the following day. Respondent Linkous answered that he saw no problem since he intended to deposit the check in his own account in another bank and assumed it would be at least a day before the check was presented to the drawee. On the following day, Mr. Carter deposited $865.96 in the account on which the check was drawn. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. On January 31, 1979, the balance in the account was $1,000.32. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Instead of depositing the check, respondent Linkous took the check, on the same day he received it, to the Flagship First National Bank of Ormond Beach, on which it was drawn, and persuaded a teller there to stamp it so as to indicate that it had been dishonored because sufficient funds were not on deposit. On February 7, 1979, a mortgage foreclosure complaint was filed against the Carters and C.E.K., Inc., (as holder of a junior mortgage), in which respondents' attorney alleged that the Carters had "defaulted under the note and mortgage by failing to pay the payment due January 1, 1979, and all subsequent payments." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The Carters retained counsel who filed an answer and counterclaim in which it was alleged, inter alia, that Linkous "deliberately with premeditated design, deceived and tricked [the Carters]." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. After these pleadings had been filed, the Carters agreed to respondents' counsel's suggestion that they grant the corporate respondent the exclusive right to sell the motel for another five-year period in exchange for an end to the litigation, and executed an agreement to that effect. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. The parties stipulated that both respondents hold real estate licenses issued by petitioner.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondents' licenses for a period of five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Ralph Fetner, Jr., Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Hadley, Esquire 827 Deltona Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725
Findings Of Fact On or about August 23, 1982, the Petitioner submitted his Application for Licensure as a Real Estate Salesman to the Florida Real Estate Commission. Question 6 of the application and Mr. Grant's response reads as follows: 6. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? Yes If yes, state details including the outcome in full: D.U.I., but all requirements have been satisfied and suspension period long over. On September 30, 1982, the Respondent, by letter, notified the Petitioner of two D.U.I. charges and two Disorderly-Conduct-Intoxication charges that had come to the Respondent's attention. The letter further asked for an explanation of these charges as well as an explanation of the Petitioner's "partial answer" to Question No. 6 on the application. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The Petitioner responded in writing with a further explanation of the charges but did not specifically address the question raised regarding the "partial answer" to Question 6. The response also stated that the Petitioner had asked his attorney, James Dirmann, to be of any further additional assistance. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On October 22, 1982, the Florida Real Estate Commission notified Mr. Grant, by letter, of its denial of his application for licensure. That letter specifically noted two grounds for denial of the application and stated in relevant part: The reason for the Commission's action is based on your answer to Question 6 of the licensing application and/or your criminal record according to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Specifically, your denial is based upon: 1978 Driving under the influence arrest/conviction August 1979 disorderly intoxication conviction Disorderly intoxication & resisting arrest without violence arrest/conviction 1981 Driving under the influence conviction On July 11, 1978, Petitioner was convicted in Sarasota, Florida, of driving while under the influence of alcohol and was fined $222. (See Respondent's Exhibit 5). In August, 1979, Petitioner was arrested for disorderly intoxication in Sarasota, Florida, and estreated his bond of $64.50 on August 27, 1979. The order (Respondent's Exhibit 2) does not reflect whether the petitioner was, in fact, convicted of an offense. (See Respondent's Exhibit 2). On April 14, 1981, petitioner was convicted of disorderly intoxication in Sarasota, Florida, and was fined $85.00 (See Respondent's Exhibit 3.) On September 22, 1981, Petitioner was convicted in Sarasota, Florida, of driving while under the influence of alcohol and was fined $350.00. (See Respondent's Exhibit 4). The two disorderly intoxication convictions on August 27, 1979, and April 14, 1981, arose out of incidents that occurred when the Petitioner was attempting to check into First Step of Sarasota, an alcohol rehabilitation center located in Sarasota, Florida. The four incidents referred to in Paragraphs 6 through 9 above are the only convictions or arrests the Petitioner has had. When the Respondent answered Question No. 6 on his application, he had no documents or records of the four offenses described in Paragraphs 6 through 9 above and was not certain whether even the driving under the influence charges would be considered offenses. He did not recall the disorderly intoxication arrests, but did not deny that they had occurred in his October 8, 1982, response to the Commission's September 30, 1982, inquiry. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The Petitioner did not intentionally attempt to conceal information or mislead the Commission in his response to Question 6. The incomplete answer was an oversight and due in part to confusion on the part of Petitioner. During the time period 1978 through 1981, the Petitioner did, in fact, have a drinking problem. This problem developed as a result of a series of events beginning with a very hard fought and lengthy divorce proceeding initiated by Mr. Grant's ex-wife in June, 1975. Prior to 1975, Mr. Grant's mother had had a stroke and was totally disabled. In August, 1977, Mr. Grant's father died and it was necessary to close the family business which had been operated by Mr. Grant and his father and mother for many years. After his father's death, Mr. Grant became totally responsible for his invalid mother. During this same time period, following his divorce, his ex-wife had remarried and he continually experienced problems with visitation with his two children. The Petitioner began drinking heavily in 1978. In March, 1982, Mr. Grant voluntarily checked into Bay Pines Center, an alcohol rehabilitation center. He remained in Bay Pines for thirty (30) days. Since leaving Bay Pines, Mr. Grant has not been drunk or intoxicated and has consumed only a glass of wine on a couple of special occasions. Prior to going to Bay Pines Center, Mr. Grant had sought the help of a psychologist but could not afford to continue the sessions. From August, 1966, to August, 1974, Mr. Grant worked as manager and as an officer of the Sarasota County Credit Bureau. From August, 1974, to sometime in the Fall of 1977, Mr. Grant operated his own employment agency. He was licensed by the State in order to operate this employment agency. Prior to his employment with the Credit Bureau, Mr. Grant served as a First Lieutenant in the Army. Mr. Grant has a reputation in the community as an honest, hardworking businessman. He also has a reputation in the community as a very trustworthy person. In the operation of the Sarasota Credit Bureau for eight years, he was a very responsible, hardworking, and honest individual. There was no evidence of any dishonest dealing in connection with the Petitioner's previous businesses. Mr. Grant has improved greatly over the last year since leaving Bay Pines. He is more motivated and more active and now spends a great deal of time with his children. He has a much better relationship with his ex-wife and cooperates with her in caring for and giving guidance to their two children. From July 6, 1982, to August 10, 1982, Mr. Grant attended the Bert Rogers School of Real Estate. The course consisted of two night sessions each week from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. He did not miss a single class and was not late for a single class. He successfully passed the exam for that course.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's application for licensure be granted conditioned only upon passing the Real Estate Examination and payment of the necessary fees. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel E. Scott, Esquire Dirmann and Scott 2710 Main Street Sarasota, Florida 33577 Lawrence Gendzier Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Room 212, 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that Richard E. Ebner was registered as a real estate salesman on March 8, 1974 and has been so registered since that date having been issued license No. 0126254, that said license was applied for by Ebner, who prepared the application, which was jointly stipulated to be received into evidence as Exhibit 1. The parties further stipulated to the fact that Exhibit 1 contains question 9, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint in paragraph 2, and question 19, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint in paragraph 6, and that Ebner had answered question 9, "Yes. . . Midsdemeanor - Marijuana possession 1971," and question 19, "No." The parties further stipulated to the admission into evidence of Exhibit 2, Court Records of Arrest dated September 25, 1970; Exhibit 3, Court Records of Information dated September 29, 1970; and Exhibit 6, Court Records, Order of Incompetency. It was stipulated that an Order of Nolle Prosequi had been entered regarding the charges upon which the arrest, Exhibit 3, were based. The Commission offered Exhibit 4, a letter of Sheriff Collier dated January 12, 1974; and Exhibit 5, a judgment in Case No. 676 dated August 17, 1971, which were received into evidence. Thereafter on the basis of the stipulation and admission of Exhibits 5 and 6, the Commission rested its case. The Respondent then moved for dismissal of the charges because the charges were insufficient because the Commission failed to show if these matters had been disclosed the license would have been denied. The Hearing Officer denied the motion. The Respondent called his father and mother to testify. Richard Ebner had had in 1970 a drug problem and had been addicted to heroin. His parents searched the state for a hospital to treat their son. Having found a hospital, they went to the County Judge and explained their fears that their son might not stay in the hospital. Without a hearing, the Judge entered the Order of Incompetency, Exhibit 6. Thereafter, their son had gone to the hospital and remained there voluntarily. They both testified that their son, Richard Ebner, had no knowledge of the Judge's Order, and that they themselves were unaware of the nature of the order beyond the fact that they had been told it was sufficient to require their son to remain in the hospital if he tried to leave. The Board subsequently presented rebuttal testimony on the issue of incompetency that Richard Ebner's counsel had interposed an insanity plea to the 1971 arrest based upon the Order of Incompetency, see Exhibit 9. The Court refused this defense. Richard Ebner testified that he had known about the insanity defense his attorney had presented to his 1971 arrest, but that he had had no knowledge in 1971 that he had been declared incompetent by any Court or when he filled out the application. The Commission's investigator indicated that the Court's record indicated only the Order of Incompetency and no further pleadings. The Hearing Officer finds that Richard Ebner had no knowledge of the Order, Exhibit 6, adjudging him incompetent. Regarding question 9, the Commission's Exhibits 2 and 3 revealed that Ebner had been arrested in 1970 for obtaining or attempting to obtain a barbiturate or central nervous system stimulant by fraud, misrepresentation, deceit or subterfuge, or by forgery or alteration of a prescription, and uttering any false or forged prescription. As stated above, it was stipulated that these charges were dropped. The Commission's Exhibits 4 and 5 reveal that Ebner was arrested on March 30, 1971 for (1) possession if marijuana and (2) possession of marijuana paraphernalia. The charge relating to possession of paraphernalia was dropped, and Ebner was tried on possession of marijuana on June 28, 1971, found guilty and sentenced to six (6) months in the county jail. He served his sentence and was released January 12, 1972. Regarding the offense, the Respondent, Ebner, had stated on his application in response to question 9, "Misdemeanor - Marijuana possession in 1971." Richard Ebner is currently working for his father and brother in their family business and actively engaged in underwater salvage and repair as a hard hat (deep sea) diver. He works as long as 3 - 10 hours under water, and has performed such responsible work as maintenance of underwater cameras at a nuclear power plant. He testified that he no longer uses narcotic drugs and that to do so would jeopardize his life in his occupation as a diver. The Respondent appeared relaxed and confident on the witness stand and answered questions put to him by the attorneys and Hearing Officer forthrightly and without hesitation. He admitted his addiction to drugs, stated that he had overcome this, that he had not tried to conceal his 1970 arrest but thought that because the charges had been dropped by this state that there was no need to report it. He similarly stated that he had responded to question 9 regarding the 1971 arrest, conviction and sentencing.
