Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulated facts, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent Joseph Aloysius Von Waldner has been licensed as a limited surety agent. He has been in the bail bond business for nine years and has had no previous or subsequent complaints issued against him. On five occasions during January and February of 1979, respondent did authorize, hire and remunerate Delbert Leroy Sams to pick up principals or skips and surrender them to the Orange County Jail. Delbert Leroy Sams was not and has not been previously licensed in any capacity by the Department of Insurance. On March 2, 1979, Mr. Sams was denied a license by the Department of Insurance. At the time respondent engaged the services of Mr. Sams, respondent believed that Mr. Sams was working as a bail bond runner for another bail bondsman. Respondent did not inquire of Sams as to whether Sams was or was not licensed by the Department of Insurance. Respondent knew that other bail bondsmen had used Sams as a runner, and Sams showed respondent some business cards and forms which Sams used when picking up principals. Respondent admits that he was negligent for not inquiring into Mr. Sams' licensure. Respondent was called in for an investigation by the petitioner's chief investigator, Melvin R. Thayer, on February 28, 1979. After talking with Mr. Thayer and becoming aware that Mr. Sams was not licensed, respondent no longer used Sams as a runner.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order finding that respondent violated the provisions of Florida Statutes, s648.45(1)(j) and imposing an administrative penalty against respondent in the amount of $100.00, said penalty to be paid within thirty (30) days of the date of the final order. Respectfully submitted and entered this 27th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. T. Taylor, Esquire Room 428-A, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard L. Wilson, Esquire 100 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Insurance Commissioner Bill Gunter The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a limited surety agent should be revoked or the licensee otherwise disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 4-1, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated October 16, 1979. In this proceeding, Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent for various alleged violations of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 4-1, Florida Administrative Code, arising out of alleged irregularities in connection with a bonding transaction in 1978. Two witnesses testified for the Petitioner and the parties stipulated to the admission of seven documentary exhibits. The Respondent testified in his own behalf at the hearing.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Timothy Michael Paletti is currently licensed as a limited surety agent to represent Cotton Belt Insurance Company, Inc., at Orange Lake, Florida, and was so licensed during the periods alleged in the Administrative Complaint. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Stipulation) On November 23, 1978, Respondent executed an appearance bond in the Gilchrist County Circuit Court in the sum of $10,000 as agent of the surety, Cotton Belt Insurance Company, in behalf of Rodney D. Lovett, who was charged with robbery. Respondent did not attach either an affidavit or statement, as prescribed in Rule 4-1.14, Florida Administrative Code, to the bail bond at the time it was filed in the office of the Circuit Court clerk. It was not until January 31, 1979, that Respondent filed a statement concerning collateral security for the bond under Rule 4-1.141 in lieu of the affidavit required by Rule 4-1.14, F.A.C. Lovett's wife paid a $1,000 premium for the bond and his sister-in-law, Deborah Johnson, executed a demand note for $10,000, together with a mortgage deed on a dwelling which she owned in Deland, Florida, on November 23, 1978, as collateral security for the bond. During the transaction, Respondent provided Johnson with a business card bearing his Orange Lake telephone number. (Testimony of Johnson, Petitioner's Exhibits 2-4) On January 8, 1979, a Notice of Sentencing was issued by the Gilchrist County Circuit Court Clerk in Lovett's case for January 22, 1979 at Trenton, Florida. On January 13, Respondent contacted Lovett and Johnson by telephone at their respective homes and advised them of the date of the required court appearance. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 5) During January 1979, Lovett and his wife talked to Johnson about the possibility of "leaving and not going to court." Johnson became concerned about these disclosures and attempted to reach Respondent at his Orange Lake telephone number. Numerous calls to that number on January 15th were unanswered. After unsuccessful attempts to reach Respondent through the Cotton Belt Insurance Company and at another telephone number provided by Petitioner, Respondent finally called Johnson's house on January 20, at which time Johnson and a friend, Barry S. Beatty, told Respondent about Lovett's statements concerning his intentions and requested that Respondent pick up Lovett and surrender him to court so the collateral security could be released. Respondent told Johnson that he would look into the matter. He then telephoned Lovett's attorney and the Lovett home, and was assured that everything was all right. (Testimony of Johnson, Beatty, Respondent) On January 22, 1979, Lovett failed to appear at court for sentencing and the bond was therefore declared to be forfeited. Respondent and law enforcement authorities there after made efforts to locate Lovett and he was eventually apprehended and sentenced to confinement. On July 2, 1979, the Gilchrist County Circuit Court ordered that the bond previously estreated be remitted less the cost expended by the State in apprehending the defendant in the amount of $500. The collateral security posted by Johnson is still outstanding due to a dispute over costs sought by Respondent. (Testimony of Johnson, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 6-7) Respondent testified at the hearing that he felt he had made reasonable efforts to assure that Lovett would appear in court. Although Respondent moved his office in late January 1979, his office phone was in operation and his office was open during the week of January 15-22. (Testimony of Respondent)
Recommendation That the charges against Respondent Timothy Michael Paletti be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Strom Maxwell, Esquire Department of Insurance 428-A Larson Building Legal Division Tallahassee Florida 32301 Robert J. Costello, Esquire Bates and DeCarlis - Suite B 726 Northwest Eighth Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a Temporary Limited Surety/Bail Bond Agent.
Findings Of Fact On February 7, 2002, Petitioner applied to Respondent for licensure as a Temporary Limited Surety/Bail Bond Agent. Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for licensure of Temporary Limited Surety/Bail Bond Agents. In processing Petitioner’s application, Respondent conducted a routine investigation of his criminal history which revealed the facts set forth in paragraphs four and five of this Recommended Order. On July 15, 1996, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendre to two third degree felony offenses (both felonies were Resisting an Officer with Violence) and one first degree misdemeanor offense (Battery). Adjudication of guilt was withheld on all counts and Petitioner was placed on probation, which he successfully completed. On July 20, 1999, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to a third degree felony offense (Possession of Cocaine). Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Petitioner was placed on probation, which was subsequently extended. Petitioner successfully completed the extended term of probation. Respondent denied Petitioner’s application based on his criminal history.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner’s application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 25th day of May 2004.
Findings Of Fact James L. Sponheim is licensed as a Limited Surety Agent to represent Cotton Belt Insurance Company, Inc., and was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. His office is located in Dade City, Florida. (Testimony of J. Sponheim, petitioner's Exhibit 2) Respondent Bonnie L. Sponheim is qualified, but not currently licensed, as a bail bond runner. She was previously licensed as a runner, but her license was cancelled on April 3, 1980. Thereafter, she has served as a secretary in her husband's Dade City office. (Testimony of B. Sponheim, Petitioner's Exhibit l) On August 6, 1980, Stephen W. Sissitka, of Zephyrhills, Florida, made application to the Cotton Belt Insurance Company for appearance bonds B6A095951- 52 to effect his release from the custody of the Pasco County Sheriff's office. The application contained provisions as to events which would constitute a breach of the obligations under the bond, including the applicant's change from one address to another without notifying the Cotton Belt Insurance Company or its agent in writing prior to any such move. On the reverse of the application, Glenna Lilly and Spurgeon Phillips executed an indemnity agreement whereby they agreed to bind themselves to produce Sissitka in court at the required time. The application further identified Glenna Lilly as Sissitka's mother. Phillips executed a separate indemnity agreement on August 30, 1980. He is the father- in-law of Sissitka and resides in Dade City. (Testimony of J. Sponheim, S. Sissitka, Respondent's Exhibits 1,2) On August 6, 1980, Mr. Sponheim, as agent for Cotton Belt Insurance Company, issued the requested bonds in the total amount `of $2,500.00. (Testimony of J. Sponheim, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4) Although Sissitka had listed his address as Zephyrhills, Florida, he was living at the home of his father-in-law Spurgeon Phillips, in Dade City at the time he was released on bond. However, he was having difficulties with his wife and did not remain in Dade City on a continuous basis. On several occasions, he went over night to his mother's house in Zephyrhills, and another time he visited his wife's mother for several days in Pasco County. He did not tell Mr. Sponheim about the latter visit, nor did Phillips know where he was. In fact, he stayed only sporadically with Phillips during the period August to October, 1980, and sometimes would be gone for a week or two. Phillips complained to Mr. Sponheim about his inability to keep up with Sissitka's whereabouts, and wanted to have him returned to custody. As a result, Mr. Sponheim and Phillips had a meeting with Sissitka on October 7, 1980, at which time Mr. Sponheim reminded Sissitka of his obligations to report any changes of address or employment and imposed the requirement that Sissitka "check in" with Sponheim's office once a week. Sissitka was also told to stay at Phillips' house in the future. Sissitka agreed to follow the conditions imposed and keep Mr. Sponheim and Phillips notified of his whereabouts. (Testimony of J. Sponheim, B. Sponheim, Phillips, Harrelson, S. Sissitka, M. Sissitka, Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Stipulation) On October 15, 1980, Mrs. Sponheim discovered Sissitka was no longer employed at a restaurant in Dade City. Mr. Sponheim was out of the state at the time. Mrs. Sponheim was under the impression that Sissitka was living at Zephyrhills, and so she drove out to Phillips' house to talk to his wife in an attempt to ascertain his current situation. When she knocked on the door, Sissitka answered and told her that he had been living there. Mrs. Sponheim told him that they needed to talk. She waited in her car while he put on a shirt and some shoes, and joined her in the car. They then drove to Mr. Sponheim's office. On the way, she asked him about his job and where he was living, but Sissitka indicated that it was none of her business, that Mr. Sponheim had no control over him, and that as long as he showed up in court that was all that mattered. He asked her if he was going to jail, and she told him that was between him and Mr. Sponheim. When they arrived at the office they discussed the conditions of the bond and the arrangements which had been made at the previous meeting with Phillips and Mr. Sponheim on October 7. Sissitka told her that he was tired of being harrassed not only by her husband, but by Phillips, and that everyone was giving him a hard time, and he wanted it stopped. Mrs. Sponheim inferred from this statement that Sissitka wished to terminate the bond relationship and told him that if he wanted to "end it" he was free to go to the jail and surrender himself at any time. At that point, Sissitka said "fine, let's go" but Mrs. Sponheim told him that they needed to talk to Mr. Sponheim about it first. She went into the adjoining private office, telephoned her husband and informed him of the situation. He told her that Sissitka could either go ahead and surrender himself, or otherwise they would have to wait until he returned to the city to settle the matter. He further told her that if Sissitka wanted to turn himself in that she should make sure to get the surrender documents to the jail so that he couldn't walk out again. Mr. Sponheim made a practice of pre-signing the appropriate surrender forms for each person he bonded out at the time the bond was written; therefore, a signed surrender form had been previously prepared for Sissitka. The Pasco County Sheriff's Department requires that the surrender document be filed with that office prior to permitting an individual to surrender himself. Otherwise, the individual would be free to leave the jail because the bond would still be valid. After talking to her husband, Mrs. Sponheim informed Sissitka of the conversation and he asked to use the phone to call his mother. After he completed the call, he said "o.k. let's go." Mrs. Sponheim then filled in the date on the "off bond" form and they walked across the street to the jail. Sissitka went up to the jail door and said "here I am again" and opened the metal door and went on in. Mrs. Sponheim handed the surrender forms to the official at the booking office and said that she was coming off the bond. She then returned to her office and later that day Sissitka called her and inquired about the possibility of being bonded out again because he did not have enough money to post a cash bond. Mrs. Sponheim told him that her husband was not there and he asked if she could bond him out. She replied that she didn't have a license, but gave him the name of another bondsman. (Testimony of J. Sponheim, B. Sponheim, Kelly, Brown, Shytle, Petitioner's Exhibits 5,6)
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of unlawfully employing a felon in the conduct of the bail bond business, in violation of Sections 648.44(8)(b) and 648.45(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 4-221.001, Florida Administrative Code. If so, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed limited surety agent, holding license number A025071. At all material times, Respondent has been the president and owner of Dolly Bolding Bail Bonds, Inc. (Dolly Bolding), which is located at 108 South Armenia Avenue in Tampa. In July 1999, Carver Taitt visited the office of Dolly Bolding to obtain a bail bond for his son, who had been arrested on drug charges. The judge had set bond at $20,000, so the bail bond premium was $2000. Mr. Taitt spoke with Respondent and said that he did not have the entire $2000; he had only $1000. Respondent declined to extend Mr. Taitt credit for the $1000 balance. Mr. Taitt then offered $1500, and Respondent agreed to allow Mr. Taitt to owe Dolly Bolding the remaining $500. At this time, Mr. Taitt saw Frank Cueto, Sr., also known as “Paunch,” in the office of Dolly Bolding. Mr. Taitt also told Mr. Cueto that Mr. Taitt would pay the remaining $500. Mr. Taitt had obtained bonds in the past five years from Dolly Bolding. During this time, he had often seen Respondent and Mr. Cueto in the office, and Mr. Taitt was acquainted with both of them from these past purchases of bonds. Mr. Cueto contacted Mr. Taitt several times and asked him to pay the remaining $500. At one point, Mr. Cueto threatened that Dolly Bolding would revoke the bond if Mr. Taitt did not immediately pay the remaining $500, especially because he was about to take a trip whose cost would approximate the outstanding balance. Mr. Taitt paid the $500 on the day prior to his son’s court appearance. When he complained to Mr. Cueto that he should have trusted Mr. Taitt based on their past relationship, Mr. Cueto replied that money is money. Mr. Taitt’s son missed his court appearance, and the judge ordered the forfeiture of the bond. The judge later entered an order reinstating bail, but this order did not reinstate the obligation previously undertaken under the bond by Dolly Bonding or its principal. Consequently, Mr. Taitt telephoned Dolly Bonding and requested a reissuance of the bond. Told that Respondent was unavailable, Mr. Taitt spoke with Mr. Cueto. Mr. Cueto told Mr. Taitt that no surety company would agree to reissue the bond. In the meantime, the assistant public defender obtained an order from the judge for the administrative release of Mr. Taitt’s son. By this means, the jail released Mr. Taitt’s son immediately without posting any bond. The facts contained in paragraphs 4-8 above are derived from Mr. Taitt’s testimony. This constitutes some, but not all, of Mr. Taitt’s testimony. The Administrative Law Judge has not credited much of the remainder of the testimony, including, most significantly, Mr. Taitt’s testimony that Mr. Cueto was always in the office of Dolly Bolding and that he seemed to run the bonding business. Mr. Taitt was angered by Mr. Cueto’s involvement in this transaction. Much of his uncredited testimony lacked the detail of his credited testimony. As for the credited testimony, Respondent, who was not always present in the office, was not able to rebut the more-detailed portion of Mr. Taitt’s description of Mr. Cueto’s handling of the transaction. Mr. Cueto did not testify, although he is engaged to be married to Respondent and lives with her. However, Respondent’s testimony is credited over Mr. Taitt’s vague, conclusory testimony as to the business relationship between Respondent and Mr. Cueto. Thus, consistent with Respondent’s testimony, the Administrative Law Judge finds that Mr. Cueto has not exercised any dominion over Dolly Bolding or Respondent. Respondent is an articulate, intelligent individual, who is a college graduate. She makes all bonding decisions for Dolly Bolding. Mr. Cueto is not an employee, officer, or shareholder of Dolly Bolding, and Respondent is not an employee, officer, or shareholder in any company owned by Mr. Cueto. He maintains an office in the same building as Dolly Bolding’s office, and he is present in the Dolly Bolding office on a frequent basis. At least in the case of the bond for Mr. Taitt’s son, Mr. Cueto has involved himself to some extent in Respondent’s bonding business. It is entirely possible that Mr. Cueto’s involvement in this bonding transaction is isolated, as he may have been inclined to involve himself to an unusual degree in a bonding matter due to the number of years that Mr. Cueto has known Mr. Taitt. It is even more likely that Mr. Cueto’s involvement in this bonding transaction was without the knowledge of Respondent. Mr. Cueto is a felon. He was convicted in 1994 of unlawful engaging in the bail bond business and misleading advertising. Mr. Cueto was formerly a licensed limited surety agent, but Petitioner suspended his license sometime ago. Respondent was at all times aware of these aspects of Mr. Cueto's background. In November 1991, Petitioner commenced an administrative proceeding against Respondent, as a licensed limited surety agent, for allowing an unlicensed person to participate in the bail bond business. By Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order and Consent Order, both signed in April 1992, Respondent agreed, and was ordered, to pay an administrative fine of $2000.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance dismiss the Second Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ROBERT E. MEALE 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 6th day of April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Anoush A. Arakalian Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Joseph R. Fritz Joseph R. Fritz, P.A. 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provision of the Florida Insurance Code by employing a convicted felon in the bail bond business. Whether Respondent violated the provisions of the Florida Insurance Code by failing to report a change of address to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the dates and occurrences referred to in this matter, Respondent Clarence Luther Cephas, Sr., was licensed in the State of Florida as a bail bond agent. Pursuant to Florida law, Petitioner has jurisdiction over the bail bond licensure and appointments of Respondent. Records of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida (Criminal Division), show that Pamela Jean Coleman, a/k/a Deborah Lee Diehl, a/k/a Pamela Jean Jones, a/k/a Pamela Jones, a/k/a Pamela Coleman, pleaded guilty and was adjudicated guilty on March 28, 1975, in case number 75-239 CF, of buying or receiving or aiding in concealment of stolen property, a felony. Records of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida (Criminal Division), show that Pamela Jean Coleman, a/k/a Deborah Lee Diehl, a/k/a Pamela Jean Jones, a/k/a Pamela Jones, a/k/a Pamela Coleman, pleaded guilty and was adjudicated guilty on October 22, 1975, in case number 75-2390 CF, of violation of drug abuse law, a felony. Records of the State of Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) show that the conviction set forth in paragraph 4 above included convictions on March 28, 1975, and July 17, 1975, for parole violations. On or about March 7, 1980, the State of Florida Office of Executive Clemency restored the civil rights of Pamela Jean Coleman, relative to Coleman's criminal convictions in Palm Beach County, Florida, in 1975. Records of the FDLE show that on or about November 25, 1991, Pamela Jean Coleman, a/k/a Deborah Lee Diehl, a/k/a Pamela Jean Jones, a/k/a Pamela Jones, a/k/a Pamela Coleman, plead nolo contendere, was adjudicated guilty, and convicted of retail theft in Polk County, Florida, a misdemeanor of the first degree, which constituted a crime of moral turpitude. Records of the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Polk County, State of Florida, show that on or about November 25, 1991, Pamela Jean Coleman, a/k/a Deborah Lee Diehl, a/k/a Pamela Jean Jones, a/k/a Pamela Jones, a/k/a Pamela Coleman, in case number CF91-1923, pled nolo contendere, was adjudicated guilty and convicted of petit theft, a misdemeanor of the first degree, which constituted a crime of moral turpitude. Records of the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Polk County, State of Florida, show that on or about December 16, 2002, an Amended Information was filed against Pamela Jean Coleman (a/k/a Deborah Lee Diehl, a/k/a Pamela Jean Jones, a/k/a Pamela Jones, a/k/a Pamela Coleman) in case number CFO2-00597A-XX, charging that between November 27, 2000, and January 25, 2002, in the County of Polk and State of Florida, having been convicted of or pled guilty or no contest to a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude or a crime punishable by imprisonment of one year or more under the law of any state, territory, or county, regardless of whether adjudication of guilt was withheld, did participate as a director, officer, manager, or employee of a bail bond agency or office thereof or exercise direct or indirect control in any manner in such agency or office or own shares in a closely held corporation which had an interest in a bail bond business contrary to Section 648.44, Florida Statutes. Further, the records of said court show that on or about January 31, 2002, Pamela Jean Coleman (a/k/a Deborah Lee Diehl, a/k/a Pamela Jean Jones, a/k/a Pamela Jones, a/k/a Pamela Coleman) in case number CFO2-00597A-XX, was tried, found guilty and adjudicated guilty of a violation of Section 648.44(8), Florida Statutes, acting as a bail bondsman while being a convicted felon, a felony of the third degree, as charged in the aforesaid Amended Information. Said conviction is presently on appeal before the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. Respondent knew or should have known the foregoing information. Documents under Seal from the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, pertaining to Clarence Luther Cephas, Sr., Bailbonds, Ltd., Inc., show that Pamela Jean Coleman filed original documents on behalf of Respondent's corporation and corresponded with the Department of State, Division of Corporations, on behalf of the said corporation. She was listed as both the registered agent of the corporation and also a vice-president and director of the said corporation as set forth on a document filed over the signature of Respondent. Other filed documentation show Pamela Jean Coleman as the president, secretary, and as director of said corporation. These documents are accurate and valid. The original license application form, Florida Insurance Temporary License Application, under Section 11, Screening Question Information, contains the following language: "If you were adjudged guilty or convicted of a felony crime and your civil rights were lost, provide evidence that your civil rights have been restored." There is no evidence in the record that Coleman provided that information to Petitioner at the time the original application was filed or at any time subsequent to that period, and Coleman signed the application. Respondent gave a statement, under oath, before Luis Rivera, Special Investigator for Petitioner's predecessor (Department of Insurance), on November 27, 2000, wherein he stated: I have known Pamela Coleman/Jones for approximately four years and she has been affiliated with me for most of the time that I have been in the bail bond business. I had asked her if she had ever been convicted of a felony and she said that she had been convicted as a teenager. She had a Certificate of Restoration of Civil Rights from the Office of Executive Clemency that is dated March 7, 1980. I was under the impression that if her rights had been restored, that it would not be a problem with her working for me. I named Pamela as an officer in my corporation because I did not have any family that I could list as an officer except for my daughter, who is a deputy sheriff and could not be an office of the corporation. Respondent had a business address-of-record with Petitioner of B & B Bail Bonds, 580 North Broadway Avenue, Bartow, Florida 33830-3918, when in fact his business address was 2095 East Georgia Street, Bartow, Florida 33830-6710. Respondent did not notify Petitioner of a change of address for his corporation as required by law. In November 2000 during an interview, Luis Rivera and another Special Investigator from his office advised Respondent that Petitioner (then the Department of Insurance) considered him to be in violation of Section 648.44(8), Florida Statutes, notwithstanding any restoration of civil rights granted to Pamela Jean Coleman. Luis Rivera visited the home office of Respondent, on March 7 and 21, 2000, at 2095 East Georgia Street, Bartow, Florida 33830-6710, and knew of no other office location for that agent after that date. Constance Castro, a Special Investigator with the Tampa Office, Petitioner (then the Department of Insurance), Bureau of Agent and Agency Investigations, during September 2001, made an undercover visit to the bail bond office of Respondent, and pretended to be in need of a bail bond for a fictitious relative. She dealt directly with Pamela Jean Coleman who proceeded from the home living area of the house where Respondent was also located, to the office area of the home where Coleman conducted bail bond business with Castro. Special Agent Michael Kreis, Drug Enforcement Agency, in early 2001, had business with Cephas Bail Bonds. He went to the office thereof where he observed Pamela Jean Coleman sitting behind the desk. Coleman told him that she had posted bond the night before for the people he was asking about, and was very familiar with the street names of the people that were being sought. Coleman helped to arrange what was supposed to be a meeting between her and one of the suspects using the ruse that she needed the suspect to sign some bail bond paperwork. Kreis observed Respondent in the office but Coleman seemed to be in charge. Kreis observed her on the phone and dealing with people who came into the Cephas' bail bond office, and noted that by her actions and conduct, she was acting as a bail bond agent. On or about June 19, 2001, Noel Elizabeth "Nikki" Collier was working as a paralegal in her husband's law office when Pamela Jean Coleman visited their office with paperwork for one of their mutual clients to fill out. Coleman left her business card which read "Pamela J. Coleman, President, Clarence L. Cephas, Sr. Bail Bonds." Coleman was dressed in a black outfit with a badge attached to her belt. Coleman told her that if the mutual client did not sign the paperwork then the bail bonds would be revoked. When in the law office, Coleman identified herself as an agent for Clarence Cephas Bail Bonds. Respondent acknowledged that Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 8 was indeed a sworn statement made by him during a visit to Petitioner (then Department of Insurance), Bureau of Agent and Agency Investigations, at its offices in Tampa, Florida, in November 2000, and that he was indeed warned by Petitioner's personnel that he was in violation of Section 648.44(8), Florida Statutes. He was subsequently warned by the filing of an Administrative Complaint in June 2001, an Amended Administrative Complaint in December 2001, and a Second Amended Complaint in March 2003. Respondent acknowledged that Pamela Jean Coleman was indeed listed as an officer and as a registered agent as well as the filer of various corporation documents, regarding his corporation and on file with the Department of State, Division of Corporations, and that he did sign the paperwork indicating that she was a corporate officer. Respondent further acknowledged that Coleman did participate in his bail bond business and that he did make payments to her as an employee, which included filing of a W-2 Form indicating said payments. During the pendency of this action, the State of Florida, by and through Jerry Hill, State Attorney for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, prosecuted Respondent for criminal violations of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes (2003), in the case styled State of Florida v Clarence Luther Cephas, Florida Tenth Circuit Court, Case Number CF02-00598A-XX (the "criminal case"). The Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit conducted a jury trial in the criminal case. On December 17, 2003, the jury rendered a verdict of "not guilty," and the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit rendered a judgment of not guilty in the criminal case. The allegations contained in the criminal case were identical to the allegation contained in Count one of Petitioner's Second Amended Administrative Complaint. During the approximate period of time March 1997 to at least December 2001, Respondent did employ and/or did otherwise allow Pamela Jean Coleman to participate in the bail bond business. Respondent did fail to notify the Department of Financial Services of a change of address as required by law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order as follows: Finding Respondent guilty of employing a convicted felon in the bail bond business, in violation of Sections 648.30, 348.44(8)(b), 648.45(2)(e) and (j), and 648.45(3)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes; Finding Respondent guilty of failing to report a change of address; and Revoking the bail bond agent license and eligibility for licensure of Respondent pursuant to Chapter 648, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Franklin, Esquire The Franklin & Carmichael Law Firm, P.A. 301 East Main Street Post Office Box 50 Bartow, Florida 33806 Dickson E. Kesler, Esquire Department of Financial Services 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N-321 Miami, Florida 33128 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Russell Bruce Moncrief is licensed with Respondent as a general lines agent (2-20) and at all times here relevant was so licensed. Shortly after Respondent opened his bail bond office, he was approached by Sams who represented himself as a bounty hunter who could pick up "skips" and others the bail bondsman wanted for surrender under their bonds. Sams represented that he was a member of the Florida Assurity Association, that he so worked for several bail bondsmen and was qualified to pick up skips for bail bondsmen. Sams produced an impressive badge, business cards and arrest forms for the bondsman to sign which would authorize Sams to pick up the individuals who had skipped out on their bonds. At this time Respondent had no skips to pick up and suggested Sams contact him later; and, during the period between June and September, 1978, Sams picked up some five (5) to eight (8) individuals on whom Respondent had written a bond and returned these people to Respondent. For these services, Respondent paid Sams a percentage of the bond. This relationship with Sams terminated when the latter gave Respondent a worthless check. Subsequently, Sams learned that his "bounty hunting" was unauthorized and applied for licensure as a bail bond runner. During Petitioner's investigation of Sams' application, his association with Respondent became known and Respondent told Petitioner's agents of his relationship with Sams. This led to an investigation of Respondent and to the charges here preferred. On March 9, 14, 15 and 20, 1979, agents of Petitioner visited the office of Respondent during the morning hours and found the office closed. These times the office was visited were generally between 9:00 A.M. and 12:00 Noon. On March 9, 1979, Nelson Messimore waited at Respondent's office from 6:00 A.M. until 2:00 P.M. before the office was opened. This individual tried numerous times to call the phone number shown on a sign inside Respondent's office but received no answer. He obtained the bond desired when the office was opened. From the time he opened his bail bond office in early 1978, until he learned of the charges being investigated, Respondent had his office opened around noon by his secretary who stayed at the office until 6:00 P.M. Respondent usually arrived between 2:00 and 4:00 P.M. and kept the office open until nearly midnight. During this period he had an answering service to answer his calls 24 hours per day when the office was not open and a paging service to "beep" him when someone was trying to contact him. After learning that Petitioner's agents deemed his office hours to be in violation of Petitioner's regulations, Respondent engaged the services of another bail bondsman and had the office opened at 8:00 A.M. and it remained open during the normal working day. Respondent continued to keep the evening hours he previously used. On or about February 28, 1978, Respondent was given the jail card of Willie Frank Boone by the booking officer to use in preparing a bailbond. Boone had previously been bonded by Respondent and he was somewhat familiar with Boone's record. While the card was in his custody, Respondent thought one entry on the card was an error and interlined that item. Further perusal of the card led Respondent to realize the card had not been in error. When he returned the card to the booking officer, he told the booking officer of the changes he had made to the card. This caused considerable consternation in the booking officer and led to procedural changes to not allow custody of the jail cards to be given to bail bondsmen. The change to the jail card made by Respondent could not benefit Respondent financially or otherwise. However, the change could have affected the sentencing of the accused.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Charlie James Perry has held a limited surety agent's license, No. L000078045, originally issued by petitioner in 1989. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Asked by law enforcement in Daytona Beach to serve an arrest warrant on Jacqueline Yvette Wells Brown, Investigator Gayward Franklin Hendry of the Special Prosecution Division of the Fourth Circuit's State Attorney's office made inquiries in Jacksonville about Ms. Brown. Told that Ms. Brown worked at C.J. Frazier's Bail Bonds, he and Investigator Norris of Daytona Beach visited Frazier's, respondent's place of business at all pertinent times, on February 21, 1992. An African American woman told them Ms. Brown no longer worked there. Investigator Hendry telephoned Frazier's on March 10, 1992, and spoke to Mr. Perry, telling him of the outstanding arrest warrant for Ms. Brown. Respondent Perry told Mr. Hendry he did not know where Ms. Brown was, but that he would try to find out, and he asked Mr. Hendry not to tell anybody he was helping to try to locate her. After eight to ten subsequent attempts to reach Mr. Perry by telephone had proved unavailing, Mr. Hendry next spoke to him on or about April 30, 1992, when Mr. Perry reported he had been unable to get any information about Ms. Brown's whereabouts but that he was still trying. On May 13, 1992, Mr. Hendry and fellow investigator Bob Lassiter were again told that Ms. Brown worked at Frazier's, and were given a description of the car she drove. Half past nine o'clock that morning Investigators Hendry and Lassiter saw a car fitting the description at Frazier's. Mr. Hendry telephoned Frazier's from a pay telephone nearby, and asked for Jackie. Respondent answered, "Ok, hold," or "Yes, just a minute." Then Ronella Daniels got on the line and told Mr. Hendry that Jackie was not there. Investigators Hendry and Lassiter went from the telephone booth to Frazier's, where Ms. Daniels met them at the door. Eventually respondent Perry emerged from a back office to speak to the investigators, who announced that they had come for Ms. Brown. When Mr. Perry told them Ms. Brown was not on the premises, they asked to come in and look. Aware of the arrest warrant, Mr. Perry inquired whether they also had a search warrant, and was informed that they did not. He then made a telephone call to a lawyer in the midst of which Investigators Hendry and Lassiter pushed past him and found Ms. Brown hiding in a shower stall.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for ninety (90) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 15th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact, except for No. 4, have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 4, several efforts to reach respondent by phone during that period were made, but without success till on or about April 30, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Gallagher, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel T. Gross, Esquire Joseph D. Mandt, Esquire 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Charlie James Perry 2042 Moncrief Road Jacksonville, FL 32209-5775 Charlie James Perry 2180 Kingswood Road Jacksonville, FL 32207-4320
The Issue Whether the Agency for Persons with Disabilities’ (Agency’s) intended action to deny Petitioner’s application for exemption from disqualification from employment is an abuse of the Agency’s discretion.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is a 29-year-old male who lives in Leesburg, Florida, with his wife, Jasmine Hall. Petitioner has four daughters whom he is actively engaged in parenting.2/ Petitioner is employed by a bail bond agency owned by his father-in-law. Petitioner is pursuing his bachelor’s degree in organizational management at Lake Sumter State College and anticipates graduating Spring 2017. Petitioner is the second oldest of five children raised by their mother, not knowing their fathers. Petitioner described his childhood as difficult, being raised without a male role model and in a rough area of town where violent crime was prevalent. Petitioner explained that he was studious, made good grades, and worked odd jobs throughout his childhood and young adulthood to help support the family. Despite his work ethic and good grades, he did make some poor decisions and fell in with the wrong crowd. Petitioner was exposed to violent acts in his community. In one incident, Petitioner witnessed his best friend being shot in the head at a nightclub. Petitioner has overcome many of the hardships he encountered in his childhood and desires to improve the future for himself and his children, provide for his family with a steady full-time job, and be financially secure, rather than living paycheck-to-paycheck as his mother did. The Disqualifying Offense On April 24, 2011, following a visitation with his two children at the time, Petitioner returned the children to their mother’s home. The details of the disqualifying offense are in dispute, but the record supports the following findings. Petitioner and the children’s mother became involved in a verbal altercation, during which Petitioner threw a can of soda at her. The record did not clearly establish that the soda can struck the children’s mother, but did establish that soda was splashed on her. After throwing the soda, Petitioner entered his vehicle with the intention to leave. The children’s mother followed him and hit the driver’s side window of Petitioner’s vehicle, causing the driver’s door to close before Petitioner’s hand was completely inside the vehicle. This angered Petitioner, who then exited the vehicle. The victim ran away from Petitioner, who proceeded to the victim’s vehicle and kicked the side of her vehicle leaving a dent in the vehicle. Petitioner then left the scene. Petitioner’s children, who were inside their mother’s home, did not witness the incident. According to the police report of the incident, the victim had no physical marking on her body, but her shirt was wet at the shoulder consistent with being hit with a soda can. On May 11, 2011, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to one count of domestic battery and one count of criminal mischief in an amount of $200 or less. Adjudication was withheld and Petitioner was ordered to serve 12 months’ probation, which terms required him to make restitution for the property damage, attend a batterer’s intervention course, maintain no contact with the victim, and incur no new law violations. Petitioner was granted early termination of probation on November 7, 2011, having complied with all terms of the probation. Subsequent Criminal History Petitioner has had no criminal history subsequent to the disqualifying offense. Petitioner has been cited for a number of traffic infractions since the incident: three for speeding, one for running a stop sign, and one for driving without a seatbelt.3/ Petitioner was also cited for driving without a license in May 2014. Petitioner’s license was in effect, but he failed to have it on his person at the time of the traffic stop. Petitioner has disposed of all his traffic infractions. Subsequent Employment History Petitioner has been continuously employed since the disqualifying offense, mostly as a laborer. He has unloaded trucks and tracked inventory for Target, cleaned the plant and maintained machines for American Cement Company, and worked as a day laborer for Labor Ready. Petitioner began working for Angle Truss in June 2015 in truss fabrication. Angle Truss is owned by Petitioner’s father-in-law, Pernell Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell testified on Petitioner’s behalf. Mr. Mitchell was, until recently, a law enforcement officer with the Leesburg Police Department, and served as school resource officer and D.A.R.E. instructor at Petitioner’s elementary school.4/ Mr. Mitchell has known Petitioner since Petitioner was in the fifth grade. Mr. Mitchell has chosen to personally mentor Petitioner, and has had significant interactions with him over the past seven or more years. Mr. Mitchell owns a bail bonding agency. As of the date of the hearing, Petitioner was employed at Mr. Mitchell’s bail bond agency. Mr. Mitchell finds Petitioner trustworthy enough to leave him in charge of the agency when Mr. Mitchell is out of town. Mr. Mitchell also owns Wings of Love, a group home and Medicaid Waiver provider in Leesburg, Florida. Mr. Mitchell hosts his group home clients at his personal residence for a family dinner once each week. Petitioner and his family attend the dinners, along with the clients’ families. Petitioner interacts with the clients during dinner, and often plays basketball or other games with them following dinner. Mr. Mitchell describes Petitioner as caring, patient, and compassionate with the clients. He has observed that the clients gravitate toward him because he treats them with respect. Subsequent Education and Personal History Petitioner has attained significant educational goals and taken on many new responsibilities since the 2011 incident. In 2012, Petitioner joined Citadel of Hope, a church in Leesburg. The following year, Petitioner joined the church’s security team, volunteering to guard doorways and patrol the parking lot during services. In 2014, Petitioner joined the church’s outreach ministry, which raises funds to support missionaries abroad and to provide food and toiletries for the local community in need. Petitioner completed an Associate in Arts degree from Lake Sumter State College in May 2014, and an Associate in Science degree (Criminal Justice Technology) from the college in August 2015. Petitioner continues to pursue his education, and anticipates completing his Bachelor’s degree in organizational management in the spring of 2017. Petitioner has continuously maintained his employment while in school. James Cason, a librarian at the college, submitted a character reference letter for Petitioner’s exemption application. Mr. Cason became familiar with Petitioner through Petitioner’s use of the library during 2014 and 2015. In the letter, Mr. Cason described Petitioner as determined and having a positive attitude. Mr. Cason was impressed with Petitioner’s character, his dependability, and his ability to manage his school and work schedules. In 2014, Petitioner voluntarily took a parenting class. After pursuing premarital counseling, Petitioner married his wife, Jasmine Hall, in June 2015. Together, Petitioner and his wife, along with the birth mother, are raising his four children. Petitioner’s Exemption Request On his exemption questionnaire, Petitioner described the events of the disqualifying offense as follows: On 4/24/11, the mother of my kids and I had a verbal disagreement as I attempted to return my children home after my weekend visitation. She became irate [and] slammed the car door on my wrist. At that point, I threw the remainder of my soda on her. Although it was wrong at the time I thought it was better than physically retaliating and striking her. I also put a small dent in her vehicle before I left. I was subsequently arrested 15 minutes later. Petitioner indicated that there were no stressors in his life at the time of the incident, but that he “was just a little upset about having [his] wrist shut in [his] car door.” Michael Sauvé is the Agency’s deputy regional operations manager for the central region. Mr. Sauvé reviewed Petitioner’s exemption request and made the recommendation to the director to deny the request. According to Mr. Sauvé, he recommended denial of Petitioner’s exemption request because, in his application, Petitioner was not forthcoming with the details of the offense, minimized the offense, shifted blame to the victim, and did not genuinely express remorse. Further, due to the number of moving violations for which Petitioner has been cited since the disqualifying offense, Mr. Sauvé doubts Petitioner’s ability to safely transport clients. Mr. Sauvé questioned the veracity of Petitioner’s account of the disqualifying offense, particularly with Petitioner’s claim that he sustained an injury to his wrist during the altercation. He speculated that Petitioner fabricated the injury “after the fact” to justify his actions on the day in question. In support of this opinion, Mr. Sauvé twice pointed to the fact that the police report contains no documentation of Petitioner’s injury. He testified that “[i]f there was something in the police report that talked about the wrist, if there was something in any of the other documents that we saw that mentioned this injury to his wrist, I would feel a lot differently than I do today.”5/ Petitioner testified that he did report his injury to the arresting officer, who did not include it in the report. Petitioner also credibly described, in some detail, how the injury to his wrist occurred during the altercation with the victim. The evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner fabricated the injury. Next, in Mr. Sauvé’s opinion, Petitioner’s response that he “put a small dent in her vehicle” was an attempt to minimize the damage he caused to the victim’s vehicle. Mr. Sauvé explained, “The criminal records show that it--the criminal mischief charge was $500 in property damage. I don’t know very much about cars, but that seems like it might be more than a small dent.” While the arresting officer estimated the damage to the vehicle at $500, Petitioner was actually charged with criminal mischief in the amount of $200 or less. No automobile repair expert is needed to establish that a small dent may very well cost at least $200 to repair. Mr. Sauvé’s conclusion, that Petitioner’s response was an attempt to minimize the damage, is inconsistent with Petitioner’s response to question four, in which he acknowledged causing approximately $500 in property damage to the victim’s car. It is illogical to conclude that Petitioner was attempting to minimize damage to the vehicle in his answer to question one, when three questions later, Petitioner disclosed the exact amount of vehicle damage reported on the arrest affidavit. Mr. Sauvé was particularly troubled by Petitioner’s answer to question number four, which required the applicant to explain the “[d]egree of harm to victim or property (permanent or temporary), damage or injuries[.]” In response to that question, Petitioner wrote, “There was no harm to the victim. There was approximately $500 worth of property damage to the victims [sic] car that I made restitution for.” Mr. Sauvé questioned Petitioner’s conclusion that there was no harm to the victim. He explained, as follows: If I give him the benefit of the doubt by his statements and I go back to his account that’s set forth on page 27, question 1, it-- it doesn’t sound to me like there was no harm that the [mother of his children] encountered. She--he took a soda and threw it at her. When you throw something at someone and physically injure them, whether or not it’s something that just leaves a bruise or anything, that’s scary.6/ Apparently, Mr. Sauvé would have liked Petitioner to state, in answer to this question, that Petitioner scared the victim. The victim may have indeed been fearful, but the question does not ask the applicant to speculate as to the victim’s state of mind at the time of the incident. The question is phrased to elicit factual information from the applicant. Petitioner’s statement that the victim suffered no physical harm is both factual and supported by the police officer’s observation at the scene that the victim had no physical markings on her.7/ Mr. Sauvé’s recommendation to deny the exemption request was further influenced by his belief that the children witnessed the altercation between their parents. He testified as follows: It’s especially scary when the children that he just finished his visitation with were potentially within earshot. The statements in the police report indicate that the children were--they had just went [sic] inside the house. So if they’re outside--in my mind, was trying to envision the circumstances. And in my mind, I saw them outside, the children inside. I don’t know if they heard. I don’t know what happened.8/ The only evidence on this issue is the arresting officer’s statement, as advised by the children’s mother, that the children went inside the house before the altercation took place. There is no evidence to support a finding that the children either witnessed or overheard the altercation between their parents. Mr. Sauvé’s speculation, or his “envision[ing of] the circumstances,” is irrelevant. The factual circumstances surrounding the incident are relevant, not what Mr. Sauvé saw in his mind. Finally, in Mr. Sauvé’s opinion, Petitioner’s answers on the questionnaire do not express remorse for the disqualifying offense. In particular, Mr. Sauvé pointed to the following two statements made by Petitioner on the questionnaire: (1) “Although it was wrong at the time I thought it was better than physically retaliating and striking her”; and (2) “I regret that I reacted during the situation as opposed to calling the police and filing a report for the physical pain that I endured.” In Mr. Sauvé’s opinion, the first statement was “peculiar and off putting” and he was concerned that five years after the incident, Petitioner would remark (in Mr. Sauvé’s words), “well, I didn’t hit her.” On the one hand, Petitioner’s statement does appear to minimize the offense. However, it cannot be overlooked that, on the continuum of battery offenses, throwing soda at a person (with a force such that it leaves absolutely no physical mark) is on the lower, or minimal, end of the scale. On the other hand, the first statement documents Petitioner’s awareness that he had other choices available to him during the incident, and that, even during the heat of the moment, Petitioner exercised some degree of restraint. Throwing the soda was indeed a better choice than hitting the mother of his children. The second statement is indeed concerning. It is flippant and may be interpreted to shift blame to the victim. It is understandable how Mr. Sauvé could have been persuaded, based solely on these two statements, that Petitioner was not sincerely remorseful for his offense. Fortunately, the undersigned had an advantage not afforded the Agency--live testimony from the Petitioner in connection with his application. Final Hearing At the final hearing, Petitioner exhibited none of the flippant attitude that might be gleaned from the two statements discussed above. Petitioner took responsibility for his actions and admitted that he knew it was wrong to throw the soda on the victim. In fact, Petitioner testified that he never should have let the incident escalate and he should have avoided reacting at all. Petitioner presented as a soft-spoken, intelligent, and earnest individual, whose concern for both his family and the developmentally-disabled community was profound and genuine. His testimony underlined his motivation to improve his circumstances, attain meaningful employment, and provide a better quality of life for his family. Petitioner was justifiably proud of the educational achievements he has attained since the offense. His dedication to school was equaled by his dedication to the church and the ministries with which he has chosen to volunteer. While the Agency did consider a character reference letter from Mr. Mitchell, which was included in Petitioner’s application, the Agency did not have the benefit of Mr. Mitchell’s live testimony. The letter did not cover the extent of the relationship between Mr. Mitchell and the Petitioner, nor Mr. Mitchell’s dedication to mentoring Petitioner over the last several years. Mr. Mitchell’s testimony was both credible and compelling. He exhibited a deep understanding of the negative social circumstances Petitioner has overcome, and wisdom regarding the excellent role model Petitioner could serve for young black men and boys. The fact that Mr. Mitchell has been, since June 2015, Petitioner’s father-in-law, does not diminish the credibility of his testimony. To the contrary, the fact that Petitioner has so recently married into Mr. Mitchell’s family is strong evidence of the trust and confidence that has been earned by Petitioner. Moreover, Mr. Mitchell is Petitioner’s current employer, a fact not evident from his character reference letter. As an employer, Mr. Mitchell has been in a position to observe Petitioner’s ability to cope with stressful situations in a business setting. Mr. Mitchell’s account of Petitioner’s interaction with current clients at Wings of Love was also unavailable to the Agency during formulation of its intended decision to deny. This testimony was compelling as it underscores Petitioner’s compassion toward persons with developmental disabilities, and his demonstrated ability to deal with them respectfully. In addition, Petitioner introduced in evidence three letters of reference which were not included with his application. The most significant of the letters was submitted by Tanya Harris-Rocker. Ms. Harris-Rocker was one of Petitioner’s college instructors with whom he remains in contact. She described Petitioner as both diligent and personable. Ms. Harris-Rocker observed that Petitioner meets deadlines, submits quality work, and puts in many hours toward his studies. She highlighted Petitioner as an independent thinker and praised him for his ability to separate himself from his peers who have chosen less productive paths. Ms. Harris-Rocker attested to Petitioner’s goals of attaining educational achievements and providing an exemplary role model for his children. Despite the isolated incident occurring more than five years ago, Petitioner has a cordial relationship with the mother of his children and they work cooperatively to raise their children in a positive environment. Petitioner is determined to give his children the stability and support of two loving, devoted parents, an advantage he was denied. The record is devoid of evidence that Petitioner would pose a threat to residents of a group home for the developmentally disabled.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order by the Agency for Persons with Disabilities be entered granting Petitioner’s request for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 2016.
