The Issue Whether Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact A. Standing. The Petitioner, Peter B. Dolinger, is not incarcerated by the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is, therefore, not subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rule at issue in this proceeding. The Petitioner is an independent paralegal who owns and operates a sole proprietorship specializing in prisoner related issues. The intended scope of the Petitioner's business is to include research and pleading preparation for licensed members of the Florida Bar; agency representation before state agencies, in a qualified non-attorney representative status. The Petitioner, while representing an inmate in an unrelated administrative proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings, Archie White v. Parole and Probation Commission, DOAH Case No. 92-2392RXP, sought the release of the inmate's records from the Respondent. The request was denied by the Respondent pursuant to Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code. Archie D. White v. Parole and Probation Commission, DOAH Case No. 92- 2392RXP, is no longer pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Final Order was entered in that case in June, 1992. The Respondent. The Respondent is the state agency required to adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code, provides: (9) When it is reasonably believed that a party may divulge information contained in the files of the department to an offender, the department shall restrict release of any information to that party. The Petitioner has alleged that Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code, "facially fails to establish an adeqaute [sic] standard for agency decisions. In other words, a person of common intelligence may imply the utilization of a 'reasonable' etst [sic] or standard thstb [sic] differs in totality from thst [sic] of another, most notably in the absence of definition, guidelines or policy on the standard to be applied."
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Lester Bishop, was employed as a Correctional Officer at Union Correctional Institution from March 20, 1981, to April 1, 1986. Union Correctional Institution (UCI) is a facility which houses inmates ranging in custody levels from minimum to close. In December of 1981, the Respondent was given a copy of the rules of the Department of Corrections. At this time he acknowledged that he was responsible for compliance with these rules. In late March and early April, 1986, the Respondent was scheduled to work the first shift at UCI beginning at 12:00 midnight and ending at 8:00 a.m.. The supervisor for this shift was either Lieutenant R. L. Weiland or Lieutenant S. E. Stafford, depending upon the day of the week. On March 23, 1986, the Respondent called Lieutenant Weiland at Union Correctional Institution at 12:30 a.m., requesting and receiving sick leave for the remainder of this shift. On March 24, 1986, the Respondent did not report to work, and he did not contact the shift supervisor to request leave. As a result, he was placed on unauthorized leave without pay status for this day. On March 25, 1986, the Respondent called his supervisor, requesting and receiving eight hours sick leave for this day. On March 26 and 27, 1986, the Respondent neither called his supervisor nor reported for work. He was given unauthorized leave without pay status for these days. March 28 and 29, 1986, were the Respondent's regularly scheduled days off. From March 30 until April 2, 1986, the Respondent neither called his supervisor nor reported for work. He was given unauthorized leave without pay status for these days. On April 2, 1986, the Superintendent of Union Correctional Institution, T. L. Barton, sent the Respondent a letter informing him that he had abandoned his position at Union Correctional Institution, and that he was dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order terminating the employment of the Respondent, Lester Bishop, from his position as Correctional Officer at Union Correctional Institution, for abandonment, pursuant to Rule 22A 7.010(2), Florida Administrative Code, effective March 25, 1986. THIS Recommended Order entered on this 9th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Gilda H. Lambert Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Augustus D. Aikens, Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louis A. Vargas General Counsel Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 9th day of December, 1986. Ernest A. Reddick, Esquire 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Lester Bishop, in pro per Box 1341 Starke, Florida 32091
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against her and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since November 29, 2001, certified as a correctional officer in the State of Florida. She holds Correctional Certificate Number 2000056. Javeres Kendrick and Willie Kendrick are Respondent's brothers. Respondent has lived in the same residence as her brother Javeres her entire life. Since February of 1999, when they were placed on probation for committing the felony crime of lewd and lascivious assault on a child under 16 years of age, Javeres Kendrick and Willie Kendrick have been under the supervision of the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC). On or about November 27, 2000, Respondent completed and submitted to the Department of Corrections (DOC) a Correctional Officer/Correctional Probation Officer Supplemental Application. At the time, she did not have any training or experience as correctional or probation officer. Question 4 on this employment application asked: Do you have a business or personal relationship with anyone presently incarcerated or under the supervision of the Florida Department of Correction's system? If yes, give name, relationship, and place of incarceration/supervision. Respondent answered this question by checking "No." In doing so, she believed that she was providing accurate information to DOC. Although she was aware that her brothers were on probation, she did not understand them to be "incarcerated or under the supervision of the Florida Department of Correction's system," within the meaning of the question, because they were not in state prison. Furthermore, in her mind, she had a familial, not a "business or personal relationship" with her brothers.3 Respondent was ultimately employed by DOC as a correctional officer and assigned to Broward Correctional Institution (BCI). On September 18, 2003, a team of DOC correctional probation officers (Team), consisting of Raul Fernandez, Sara Bermudez, and Juan D'Elia, accompanied by local law enforcement officers, including David Torres of the Miami-Dade County Police Department, went to the residence of Javeres Kendrick at 4270 Northwest 197th Street, Miami, Florida, to conduct a "pre- planned sex offender compliance check." The purpose of the Team's visit was to ascertain whether Mr. Kendrick was in compliance with the terms and conditions of his probation. When the Team arrived at the residence, Mr. Kendrick was outside washing a vehicle. The Team members exited their vehicles and walked up to Mr. Kendrick. They identified themselves as correctional probation officers and told Mr. Kendrick that they were there to make sure that he was in compliance with the terms and conditions of his probation. To do so, they advised him, they needed to search his bedroom (which they were authorized to do by the court order placing Mr. Kendrick on probation). Mr. Kendrick responded that his bedroom was "a mess" and that he wanted "to go and clean [it] up" before the Team conducted its search. Despite being told that he "couldn't do that," Mr. Kendrick "bolted" away from the Team members and went "inside the house." Officers Fernandez and D'Elia followed Mr. Kendrick to the front door of the residence, where they were met by Respondent, who "intercepted" them and blocked their paths, thereby "prohibit[ing] [them] from entering [the residence] immediately." While standing in their way and interrupting their pursuit of Mr. Kendrick, Respondent, using profanity, yelled at Officers Fernandez and D'Elia in a "hostile and belligerent" manner, expressing her strong displeasure over their presence at the residence. She told them that they "had no right to be there," adding that "every time [they] show[ed] up there [they] always w[ound] up arresting her brother."4 Respondent was asked at least twice to "please move," which she finally did, albeit "in a very slow and deliberate manner." Officer Fernandez instructed Respondent to "take the children out of the residence and to wait outside until [the Team] conducted [its] search." With Respondent out of the way, Officer Fernandez and D'Elia entered the residence. Officer D'Elia spotted Mr. Kendrick "in the second bedroom on the left." Mr. Kendrick had his hand in a chest drawer. While Officer D'Elia "secured" Mr. Kendrick, Officer Fernandez searched the drawer and found "paraphernalia used for the pack[ag]ing of narcotics" and baggies containing what appeared to be cocaine and marijuana. After this discovery was made, Respondent came into the bedroom (contrary to the instructions she had been given) and asked "how much longer [the Team] had left." A conversation between Officer Fernandez and Respondent ensued, during which Officer Fernandez informed Respondent about "the narcotics that were in the drawer." Upon being so informed, Respondent, with the intent to deceive the Team, falsely claimed that the bedroom in which the "narcotics" had been found was not her bother Javeres' bedroom. Rather, she told Officer Fernandez and the other Team members, the bedroom had last been occupied by her uncle, who "had wound up going to jail." As the Team was leading him away from the residence, Mr. Kendrick asked Respondent to "retrieve" for him from "his room" a pair of pants, socks, and tennis shoes that he could wear in jail. Complying with this request, Respondent, followed by Officer Bermudez, went straight to the bedroom in which the "narcotics" had been found (which was Mr. Kendrick's bedroom, contrary to what Respondent had previously claimed) and "retrieve[d]" the items her brother had requested. During her dealings with the Team that day, Respondent revealed that she was a correctional officer at BCI. Upon returning to his office, after having "finished processing Mr. Kendrick and logging in the evidence" seized from Mr. Kendrick's bedroom, Officer Fernandez complained to his supervisor about Respondent's hostile and obstructive conduct during the Team's "compliance check" at Mr. Kendrick's residence earlier that day. Inasmuch as Respondent was a DOC employee, Officer Fernandez's supervisor referred the matter for an internal affairs investigation pursuant to DOC policy. Scott Thomas, a senior prison inspector with DOC, conducted the investigation. As part of his investigation, Inspector Thomas reviewed the contents of Respondent's DOC personnel file (including the employment application she had submitted on November 27, 2000) and obtained sworn affidavits from Officers Fernandez, Bermudez, and D'Elia. In addition, on November 12, 2003, he interviewed Respondent under oath. During the interview, among other things, Respondent repeated the falsehood that the bedroom in which the "narcotics" had been found during the September 18, 2003, "compliance check" was not her brother Javeres' bedroom. In addition, she falsely denied ever having used "profanity towards the [Team] members" conducting the "compliance check" and further falsely denied that that the Team members, during the September 18, 2003, "compliance check," ever told her to "wait outside the house." Respondent made these statements to Inspector Thomas knowing that they were not true. Inspector Thomas determined from his investigation that Respondent had "provided untruthful information" on her November 27, 2000, employment application and that she had engaged in "conduct unbecoming" a DOC employee during the September 18, 2003, "compliance check" at her residence. Based on the findings of Inspector Thomas' investigation, Respondent's employment with DOC was terminated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of Allegation Two and Three and, based on these findings of guilt, revoke her certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 21st day of June, 2004.
Findings Of Fact At the time of the formal hearing in this proceeding, Petitioners were inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution. Union Correctional Institution Policy Memorandum No. 65, issued June 7, 1976 and revised and effective since October 23, 1980, provides in pertinent part that: Inmates are prohibited from using typewriters for personal correspondence or for matters other than "official state business." Violation of that Policy Memorandum may constitute a basis for disciplinary action. Petitioners have had mail returned to them because it was typewritten. (Petitioners' Exhibits 3, 4, and 5) Based on the returned mail to Petitioners, all of them have been substantially affected by the operation of the subject Policy Memorandum. As example, Petitioner Adams had several cards returned as being prohibited and was advised that if he questioned the return of those cards, he would be confined as a disciplinary action for questioning the operation of the rule as it relates to the returned cards. Additionally, Petitioner Adams lost a Clerk's job in the Law Library because he typed letters. Adams' dismissal resulted in lost "gain time" since he was dismissed for typing letters violation of Policy Memorandum No. 65. Petitioner Holland filed an application for a grant to a community college which was returned because it was typed in violation of Policy Memorandum No. 65. Finally, Petitioner Cribbs was unable to attend a favorite aunt's funeral because his request was typewritten and it was returned as being in violation of Policy Memorandum No. 65. The employees at Union Correctional Institution adhere to Policy Memorandum No. 65 strictly and employees who are derelict in their responsibilities covered in implementing that policy are subject to disciplinary action. UCIPM 65.5. (Petitioners' Exhibit 1) UCIPM 65 is a department policy, never promulgated as a rule, uniformly applied throughout Union Correctional Institution. It is, by its own terms, virtually self-executing and intended to require compliance. It therefore has the consistent effect of law.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 943.1395(6), (7), and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(c) and 11B-20.0012(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Michelle Mann (Mann), was certified by the Petitioner, Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Department) on October 11, 1991, and was issued Correctional Probation Officer Certificate Number 122933 and Instructor Certificate Number 595-40-7895. Mann was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections as a correctional probation officer in December 1994 until her resignation in February 7, 1997. Dwight Williams, aka Dwight Moment is an inmate with the Florida Department of Corrections. In December 1994, Dwight Williams was on probation with the Florida Department of Corrections for the charge of conspiracy to traffic cocaine. Mann was assigned as Mr. Williams' probation officer on December 18, 1994. This was the first time that Mr. Williams and Mann had met. From December 1994 through December 1996, Mann was Mr. Williams' supervising probation officer. Between December 1994 and November 27, 1996, Mann initiated and engaged in a physical relationship with Mr. Williams, which included hugging, kissing, and sexual relations. During this time, Mann and Mr. Williams went to hotel rooms and had sexual relations between fifteen and twenty times.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED a Final Order be entered revoking Michelle F. Mann's Correctional Probation Certificate Number 122933 and Instructor Certificate Number 595-40-7895. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Leon Lowry, II, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James D. Martin, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michelle Mann 1556 Northwest 5th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311
The Issue Whether Rules 33-3.0084(1)(i)1 and 33-3.005(4)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioners, William Van Poyck and Mike Ramadanovic, are inmates in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioners are subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rules at issue in this proceeding. The rules at issue in this proceeding govern the treatment of inmates while in "disciplinary confinement." At the time of the formal hearing, neither of the Petitioners were in disciplinary confinement. Both Petitioners have, however, been in disciplinary confinement. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing the rights of inmates, inmate conduct, inmate discipline and all other aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. C. Rules 33-3.005(4)(a) and (b), and 33-3.0084(1)(i)1, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioners have challenged Rules 33-3.005(4)(a) and (b), and 33- 3.0084(1)(i)1, Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Challenged Rules"). Rule 33-3.005(4)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part: (4) . . . . Inmates in disciplinary confinement status shall not be allowed to prepare legal documents and legal mail while in that status except under the following conditions: When there is a time limitation on the filing of legal material with a court and it reasonably appears necessary for the inmate to prepare the same while in confinement status in order to get the same filed within the required time. When the inmate wishes to prepare legal material to file with a court for the purpose of testing the legality of his disciplinary confinement. The specific statutory authority for Rule 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code, is Sections 20.315, 944.09 and 944.11, Florida Statutes. The law implemented by Rule 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code, is Sections 944.09 and 944.11, Florida Statutes. Rule 33-3.0084(1)(i)1, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part: 1. Legal materials shall be accessible to inmates in disciplinary confinement provided such use of legal material is for the purpose of challenging such confinement or in the event there are time restrictions on filing court papers. The specific statutory authority for Rule 33-3.0084, Florida Administrative Code, is Section 944.09, Florida Statutes. The law implemented by, Rule 33-3.0084, Florida Administrative Code, is Sections 20.315 and 944.09, Florida Statutes. Chapter 33-22, Florida Administrative Code, titled "Inmate Discipline", specifies what constitutes prohibited conduct for inmates, the procedures for determining if an inmate has violated the rules establishing prohibited conduct and the maximum punishment which may be imposed if an inmate violates the rules establishing prohibited conduct. The "Rules of Prohibited Conduct" and the maximum punishment for an infraction of these rules are contained in Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code. Among other things, an inmate who violates the Rules of Prohibited Conduct, may be placed in "disciplinary confinement" for specified periods of time. The length of time an inmate may be placed in disciplinary confinement for is not to exceed 60 days for any one infraction. "Disciplinary confinement" is defined in Rule 33-22.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, as: (3) Disciplinary Confinement -- Confinement which includes the loss of privileges normally afforded other inmates and is effected only after procedures outlined in this chapter have been fully complied with. Although the maximum term of disciplinary confinement is 60 days, it is possible for an inmate to be placed in disciplinary confinement for longer periods of time: (1) an inmate may be convicted of more than one violation of the Rules of Prohibited Conduct and be sentenced to multiple 60-day (or less) sentences to be served consecutively; (2) an inmate may commit another infraction(s) (including a violation of the Challenged Rules) while in disciplinary confinement, resulting in additional disciplinary consecutive confinement sentences; and (3) an inmate may commit an infraction soon after release from disciplinary confinement and be returned to disciplinary confinement. It is also possible for an inmate to serve less than the full term of his sentence to disciplinary confinement. Being placed in disciplinary confinement is a direct result of the actions of an inmate in failing to follow the established rules of conduct of the Respondent. At least one inmate has been in disciplinary confinement for periods of up to two and one-half years. An inmate would have to commit a minimum of fifteen infractions to be sentenced to disciplinary confinement for two and one- half years. The evidence failed to prove that the one inmate that has been in disciplinary confinement for two and one-half years was in disciplinary confinement continuously without any break. The inmate could not recall. The number of inmates in disciplinary confinement for more than one year was not proven. At best, it was proved by the Petitioners that one inmate (Charles William Bowe, Jr.) has served more than one year in disciplinary confinement. Even the evidence concerning Mr. Bowe, however, did not prove that his time in disciplinary confinement was continuous and without any break. Based upon an estimate of the Respondent, it is likely that no more than 1% of the inmate population (less than 460) is in disciplinary confinement for more than one year. Although the evidence did not prove that any inmate has actually been in disciplinary confinement for more than two and one-half years, it is not impossible that an inmate could be in disciplinary confinement for an unlimited period of time, as long as the inmate continues to commit violations of the Respondent's Rules of Prohibited Conduct. Although it may be unlikely, it is not impossible for an inmate to be in disciplinary confinement for the entire term of his sentence. The purpose for placing an inmate in disciplinary confinement and the purpose of the Challenged Rules is to attempt to correct an inmate's demonstrated negative behavior; to eliminate "privileges" inmates normally are given. Pursuant to Rule 33-3.005(4)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code, an inmate who is placed in disciplinary confinement is prohibited from instituting any new litigation (other than a challenge to the decision to place the inmate in disciplinary confinement or litigation which must be instituted within a specified time period) while the inmate is in disciplinary confinement. Pursuant to Rule 33-3.005(4)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code, an inmate who is placed in disciplinary confinement is generally prohibited from preparing legal documents and legal mail unless the inmate is required to meet a time limitation in an existing legal matter or the inmate intends to test the legality of his disciplinary confinement. When an inmate is placed in disciplinary confinement, all of the inmate's legal materials are confiscated and impounded. Access to an inmate's legal materials may be obtained while in disciplinary confinement pursuant to the exceptions of the Challenged Rules. At Florida State Prison, access is allowed to an inmate' legal materials if the inmate can show the necessity for those materials through: (1) a court order that requires the inmate to take some action in a pending matter; (2) any other source, i.e., a rule of the court, indicating that the inmate must meet some procedural or other requirement of the court; or (3) if the inmate indicates a desire to prepare a challenge to the legality of his disciplinary confinement. The procedure followed at Florida State Prison for an inmate in disciplinary confinement to obtain access to the inmate's legal materials is as follows: The inmate makes a request to an institutional counselor assigned responsibility for the inmate; The inmate must indicate to the institutional counselor why one of the exceptions provided in the Challenged Rules allowing access to his legal materials applies; If the institutional counselor is convinced that one of the exceptions applies, access to the inmate's legal materials is allowed. If not, no access is allowed; The procedure followed at Florida State Prison if an inmate convinces an institutional counselor that access to his legal materials should be allowed is as follows: The institutional counselor retrieves the inmate's legal materials and brings them to the inmate's cell; In some instances the institutional counselor may give the legal materials to the inmate or require the inmate to describe to the counselor, and convince the counselor of, what materials he actually needs to meet the deadline or to challenge his disciplinary confinement; and The institutional counselor, based upon the inmate's description of the materials he needs, makes the final determination of what materials may actually be given to the inmate. If the inmate does not get the materials he needs, he then must convince the counselor of what additional materials are needed. If an inmate is denied access to his legal materials or is not provided with the materials he needs, the inmate may challenge the decision of the institutional counselor by filing a grievance. Based upon the experiences of the inmates who testified in this proceeding, requests for access to an inmate's legal materials may be granted or denied, and when granted, an inmate may be given the whole file, he may be denied materials, he may be asked "is this it" and he may get only the materials he actually needs. Institutional counselors may even make more than one attempt to find the requested materials. Pursuant to Rule 33-3.0084(1)(i)1, Florida Administrative Code, an inmate may not have access to any legal materials except to the extent necessary for the inmate to meet a time limitation in an existing legal matter or if the inmate intends to test the legality of his disciplinary confinement. Access to legal materials in the library may generally be obtained by inmates. Such access is not, however, without limitation. There are limitations on the procedure which must be followed to obtain access to the library and the amount of materials which may be obtained at any one time. An inmate in disciplinary confinement is further limited as to when and how he may access library resources pursuant to the Challenged Rules. At Florida State Prison, access is allowed to library legal materials only if an inmate can show the necessity for those materials in the same manner an inmate may obtain access to his own legal materials as explained in finding of fact 26. The procedure followed at Florida State Prison for an inmate in disciplinary confinement to obtain access to library legal materials is as follows: The inmate must make a request in writing to the librarian; The inmate must indicate to the librarian why one of the exceptions to the lack of access to library legal materials applies; If the librarian is convinced that one of the exceptions applies, access to the library's legal materials is allowed. If not, no access is allowed; The librarian, based upon the inmate's description of the materials he needs, makes the final determination of what materials may actually be given to the inmate. If the inmate does not get the materials he needs, he may make additional requests. If an inmate is denied access to library legal materials or is not provided with the materials he needs, the inmate may challenge the decision by filing a grievance. Institutional counselors and librarians are not required to have legal education or training. The evidence failed to prove that any inmate has been totally denied access to the courts by the proper application of the Challenged Rules. The evidence proved that the Challenged Rules are inconvenient and aggravating to some inmates who have experienced the procedures which must be followed in order to obtain access to the inmate's legal materials or library legal materials. The procedures can be a hinderance to an inmate's pursuit of litigation to the extent that the procedures are one more step an inmate must follow that the inmate would not otherwise have to follow if he were not in disciplinary confinement. The evidence proved that, although inconvenient, some of the inmates who testified were able to pursue litigation even though they have been in disciplinary confinement at times. There was some aggravation and frustration caused those inmates who testified because of the Challenged Rules, but the evidence failed to prove that any of the inmates who testified or any other inmates were actually prevented from pursing litigation: Inmate Bowe, who has served two and one-half years of disciplinary confinement (although it was not proved whether the time was without interruption because of Inmate Bowe's memory lapse), had several court proceedings (Florida and federal) pending at the time of the formal hearing and did not indicate that he has missed any court ordered or procedural time limit or that any case has been dismissed because of an inability to prosecute his cases caused by the Challenged Rules; Leonard Bean, another inmate who testified, has served 140 to 150 days in disciplinary confinement for multiple infractions. Although Inmate Bean testified that his co-defendant's conviction had been reversed (in February, 1991), the evidence failed to prove that Inmate Bean's conviction would have also been reversed but for his disciplinary confinement or, more importantly, would have also been reversed but for the Challenged Rules. Although Inmate Bean was released from disciplinary confinement in May, 1991, he still had not filed for habeas corpus as of the date of the formal hearing; Jimmy Stephens, another inmate who testified, has served 240 days of disciplinary confinement for four infractions during the past two years. Although inconvenienced by the limitation on library legal material use, Inmate Stephens did not indicate that he has missed any court ordered or procedural time limit or that any case has been dismissed because of an inability to prosecute his cases caused by the rules at issue; Carl Watts, another inmate who testified, served 180 days in disciplinary confinement prior to being transferred to Florida State Prison and another 60 days after arriving at Florida State Prison. Inmate Watts' testimony concerning a possible habeas corpus action failed to prove that he has missed any court ordered or procedural time limit or that any case has been dismissed because of an inability to prosecute his cases caused by the rules at issue; Petitioner Ramadanovic has served up to 100 days in disciplinary confinement. Although he filed two grievances dated August 22, 1990, concerning his efforts to file a brief in an appellate court proceeding, his disciplinary confinement ended August 23, 1990, and therefore, he failed to prove that he was prevented from filing a brief or any other pleading in any case pending while he was in disciplinary confinement. The evidence also failed to prove that he has missed any court ordered or procedural time limit or that any case has been dismissed because of an inability to prosecute his cases caused by the rules at issue; Petitioner Van Poyck failed to prove that he has missed any court ordered or procedural time limit or that any case has been dismissed because of an inability to prosecute his cases caused by the rules at issue. As long as an inmate is in disciplinary confinement, that inmate may not file an action for federal habeas corpus. An inmate in disciplinary confinement may also not file an action for habeas corpus in the State courts until some, unspecified date, which the Respondent determines is close enough to necessitate preparation of the pleadings in order to meet the time limitations on habeas corpus in Florida.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the following facts: The Petitioner, Dennis R. Cookish, is an inmate currently incarcerated at Hendry Correctional Institution, Route 2, Box 13-A, Immokalee, Florida 33934. His inmate number is 073819. The Respondent, Florida Parole and Probation Commission, is located at 1309 Winewood Boulevard, Bldg. 6, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. The Respondent is responsible for establishing presumptive parole release dates for all prisoners in the custody of the State of Florida who meet the requirements of 947.16, Florida Statutes. Petitioner met all of the requirements of 947.16, Florida Statutes, and was entitled to a PPRD initial interview on March 4, 1981. Petitioner was interviewed March 4, 1981, for the purpose of setting his PPRD. By action of the Respondent on March 25, 1981, Petitioner's presumptive parole release date was established. That date was set at November 27, 1984. Petitioner did not request administrative review of his presumptive parole release date pursuant to 947.173, Florida Statutes. The Respondent Commission is required under Section 947.16 and 947.172, Florida Statutes, to provide Petitioner with a presumptive parole release date. Respondent Commission is required to compute the presumptive parole release date according to Objective Parole Guidelines, under Section 947.165, Florida Statutes, (1979). Respondent Commission may use aggravating or mitigating circumstances in determining the presumptive parole release date but they must not be duplicative of the severity of offense behavior or the salient factor score pursuant to Sections 947.165(1), 947.172(2), Florida Statutes, (1979). The Commission was delegated rule making power via Section 947.07, Florida Statutes (1979). The Respondent Commission developed parole guidelines which became effective March 20, 1979. The guidelines are contained in Rule 23-19, Florida Administrative Code. The aggravation which is the subject of the instant challenge is contained in Rule 23-19.01(5), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner was convicted of grand theft after trust on February 26, 1980, of a second count of grand theft after trust on February 29, 1980, of uttering a forged instrument on January 22, 1980, of criminal attempt (attempted robbery) on April 14, 1980, and of uttering a forged instrument on June 16, 1980; and sentenced to concurrent terms of 3 years, 3 years, 2 years, 5 years, and 3 years, respectively, and followed by 2 years probation. The depositions of David Mack and Steve Seliger are stipulated and entered into evidence as their testimony in this proceeding. The following findings are made from the evidence presented at the hearing: As a result of passage of the "Objective Parole Guidelines Act of 1978," Respondent was required to develop objective parole criteria pursuant to the Act by January 1, 1979. The Florida Research Center was hired under a Federal grant to devise such criteria. The purpose of the project was to fulfill the legislative purpose of developing objective parole guidelines under acceptable research methods to be based on the seriousness of the offense and the likelihood of favorable parole outcome. The Florida Research Center developed the required data and methods after studying the procedures followed in other states, current release data, scaling techniques, and the like. Respondent Parole and Probation Commission and its staff contributed extensively to the study. As devised, the rules promulgated as Chapter 23-19, Florida Administrative Code, provide a method of arriving at a "salient factor" score which serves as an actuarial parole prognosis aid. It is derived by considering such matters as prior convictions and incarcerations, total time served, age at first commitment and prior parole revocations or escapes. The other major facet in determining a presumptive parole release date is an "offense severity rating" which reflects the present offense of which the inmate was convicted. Offenses are characterized according to the type of offense in nine categories ranging from "Low" to "Greatest (Most Serious IV)". Each category reflects four "matrix time frames" which are the minimum and maximum number of months to be served before parole. The particular time frame for a particular offense is based on the offender's salient factor score and represents parole prognosis. (Testimony of Farris, Exhibit 20) Respondent's Rule 23-19.01(5), F.A.C., provides that if the present offense of conviction involves multiple separate offenses, the severity level shall be based on the most serious of the offenses, and the other offenses may be used as aggravating factors to be applied to both consecutive and concurrent sentences. Respondent's purpose in permitting multiple offenses to be used as aggravating factors to increase the parole matrix time frame was to recognize the proposition that there is a relationship between the numbers and types of criminal behavior which affects parole prognosis. Respondent's Rule 23-19.03, F.A.C., provides other examples of situations in which the parole decision may be either above or below the matrix time frame based upon aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In determining whether to consider multiple offenses as aggravating factors, Respondent's hearing examiners review the inmate's complete file, including presentence reports, the circumstances of the offenses, psychological reports, and his prior record to determine whether such offenses should be a basis for adding additional months to the matrix time frame when arriving at a presumptive parole release date. Each such case is considered on its individual circumstances to arrive at a subjective determination of parole risk. Aggravating factors are probably not applied in 25 to 40 percent of the cases. These normally involve first offenders with multiple offenses arising out of the same incident or which occurred close in time. In the opinion of experts at Respondent's hearing examiner and field and supervisory levels, Rule 23- 19.01(5), F.A.C., relating to aggravating factors is reasonably related to the question of parole prognosis. (Testimony of L'Hommedieu, Farris, Exhibits 9, 20) The Respondent's hearing examiners who interviewed Petitioner Cookish on March 4, 1981, to arrive at his preliminary presumptive parole release date, computed a salient factor score of 5 based on prior convictions and incarcerations, total time served in years, and age at first commitment. Utilizing the conviction for criminal attempt (attempted robbery) as the most serious of the offenses for which the Petitioner was serving a concurrent sentence, they arrived at an offense characteristic of Moderate which provided for a matrix time range of 14 to 19 months. They then considered three of four other offenses for which he had been sentenced concurrently and applied the maximum number of months according to the type of offense as aggravating circumstances for each offense for a total of 51 months. This period was added to the maximum matrix time range of 19 months for a total of 70 months to be served prior to parole. Petitioner's incarceration commenced on January 31, 1979. By adding 70 months to that commencement date, the examiners recommended a presumptive parole release date of November 27, 1984. The Respondent adopted as its own the examiners' presumptive parole release date at a commission meeting on March 25, 1981. (Testimony of Petitioner, Exhibits 4-8, 10-11) Kenneth Whittington is an inmate at the Hendry Correctional Institution who received a recommended presumptive parole release date of January 4, 1983, after being interviewed by one of Respondent's hearing examiner panels. The date was based on a salient factor score of 10 which included one point for a prior parole revocation, and an offense characteristic of Moderate based on a conviction of burglary of a dwelling which placed him in the 18-33 month matrix time range. The total time recommended to be served was 33 months. He was not serving a concurrent or consecutive sentence. (Testimony of Whittington, Exhibits 12-14) Jimmy Lee Clark is an inmate at the Hendry Correctional Institution. He is serving three concurrent sentences for battery of a law enforcement officer, resisting arrest with violence, aggravated assault, and aggravated battery. He was on parole in 1977 for possession of heroin, but parole was revoked. He was on probation for aggravated battery in 1979 which was also revoked and he was thereafter sentenced. He was interviewed by Respondent's hearing examiner panel in March, 1981 to determine a presumptive parole release date. On March 24, 1981, Respondent commission concurred with the hearing examiner panel's recommendations and set his presumptive release date at September 11, 1984. The offenses for which he was concurrently sentenced were not used as aggravating factors in arriving at the presumptive date. The sentence which he is currently serving was imposed in August 1980 for a period of five years. (Testimony of Clark, Exhibits 15-18), Stewart Strickland is an inmate at the Hendry Correctional Institution currently serving a total of 8 years confinement on 6 concurrent and 2 consecutive sentences. He has had about 33 prior arrests primarily for check offenses and has spent approximately 6 years in prison. He was 18 years old at the commission of his first offense. His current convictions involve worthless check offenses and grand theft. One of his prior offenses was a federal charge involving violation of the Gun Control Act. He has had probation revoked several times in the past. He was once on parole but did not complete the same because of conviction on a bad check charge. He was interviewed by Respondent's hearing examiner panel in March 1980 to establish a presumptive parole release date. He received a salient factor score of 7 based on prior convictions, total time served, prior incarcerations, and age at first commitment. His offense characteristic was deemed Moderate for the offense of grand theft which placed him in a matrix time frame of 18 to 33 months confinement. Four of his 7 remaining concurrent offenses were used as aggravating circumstances totalling 72 months which, added to the 33 months maximum of the matrix time range, resulted in 105 months as the total time recommended by the examiner. His presumptive parole release date was established as July 18, 1987. (Testimony of Strickland, Exhibit l9)
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners, Luis A. Pacheco, Joel Estremera, Felipe Pichardo and Owen D. Denson, are inmates in the custody and control of the Department. The Department is a state agency. On December 26, 1991, the Petitioners filed a Petition for Determination of the Invalidity of an Existing Rule against the First Respondents. The Petition was filed against "John T. Shaw, Superintendent, Glades Correctional Institution, et. al." In the Petition, the Petitioners challenged the validity of "the revision of Glades Correctional Operating Procedure 91-07, sec. 7.09" pursuant to Sections 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petition failed to challenge a rule or an alleged rule of any "agency" as that term is defined in Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes. On January 10, 1992, an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend and Cancelling Formal Hearing was entered granting a Motion to Dismiss filed by the First Respondents and giving the Petitioners an opportunity to file an amended petition on or before January 21, 1992. No amended petition was filed by the Petitioners on or before January 21, 1992. Therefore, on January 29, 1992, an Order Concerning Proposed Final Orders was entered informing the parties that they could file proposed final orders on or before February 24, 1992, and that this Final Order would be entered on or before March 16, 1992. On February 7, 1992, the Petitioners filed an Amended Petition for Determination of Invalidity of An Existing Rule and requested that it be accepted. On February 25, 1992, an Order Concerning Amended Petition was entered accepting the Amended Petition and informing the parties that this case would be disposed of by a summary final order. In the Amended Petition the Department was named as the Respondent. Although the amended petition indicates that the Petitioners are challenging Rule 33-5.01, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Sections 120.52, 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes, in fact the Petitioners are challenging a memorandum issued at Glades Correctional Institution changing Policy and Procedure Directive 3.04.12 (hereinafter referred to as the "Policy and Procedure Directive"). In the Amended Petition the Petitioners allege, in part, the following: Respondent through his designee, John T. Shaw, has adopted exhibit " A " as a rule, which governs petitioners [sic] visitors to select from, " Saturday or Sunday as their regular visiting day. Petitioners are therefore substantially " affected " and this case includes an invalid exercise of delagated [sic] authority because the department of corrections failed to promulgate it's Policy and Procedure Directive number 3.04.12 as a rule, contrary to the requirements of section 944.09, Florida Statutes. The Amended Petition fails to challenge a rule or an alleged rule of any "agency" as that term is defined is Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes.
