The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the license sought.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Ralph Roque, Jr., was an applicant for licensure as a temporary limited surety/bail bond agent. On January 3, 2002, the Department issued a Notice of Denial regarding Petitioner's application. The denial alleged that the Petitioner was ineligible for licensure due to his past criminal record. The Petitioner timely challenged the denial of his application but did not appear for hearing nor present any evidence to support his entitlement to the license sought. The Petitioner did not dispute the factual allegations set forth in the Notice of Denial. See Election of Rights dated January 17, 2002. On June 22, 1987, the Petitioner pled nolo contendere to Possession of a Controlled Substance. The Petitioner was placed on probation. On January 8, 1988, the Petitioner's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to six months imprisonment for the violation of probation. On July 6, 2001, the Petitioner was charged with carrying a concealed firearm. He pled nolo contendere to the charge. The allegations of Petitioner's criminal possession of a controlled substance charge constituted a felony under Florida law. The allegations of Petitioner's carrying a concealed firearm charge constituted a felony under Florida law. The Petitioner presented no evidence to support his entitlement to licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH 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 July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance 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 Ladasiah Jackson, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Ralph Roque, Jr. 11808 Southwest 125 Place Miami, Florida 33186
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaints filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents are correct and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensure and regulation of limited surety agents (bail bondsmen) operating in the State of Florida. The Respondents are individually licensed as limited surety agents in Florida and are officers and directors of "Big John Bail Bonds, Inc.," a bail bond agency. In November of 1999, Gustavo Porro contacted the Respondents regarding bail for Jessie James Bray, a friend of Mr. Porro's son. Mr. Porro did not know Mr. Bray. Based on the charges against Mr. Bray, four bonds were issued, two for $1,000 each and two for $250 each, for a total bond amount of $2,500. The $1,000 bonds were related to pending felony charges and the small bonds were related to pending misdemeanor charges. Mr. Porro signed a contingent promissory note indemnifying American Bankers Insurance Company for an amount up to $2,500 in the event of bond forfeiture. Bray did not appear in court on the scheduled date and the two $1,000 bonds were forfeited. For reasons unclear, the two $250 bonds were not forfeited. The contingent promissory note signed by Mr. Porro provided that no funds were due to be paid until the stated contingency occurred, stated as "upon forfeiture, estreature or breach of the surety bond." After Bray did not appear for court, the Respondents contacted Mr. Porro and told him that the bonds were forfeited and he was required to pay according to the promissory note. On April 15, 2000, Mr. Porro went to the office of Big John Bail Bonds and was told that he owed a total of $2,804, which he immediately paid. Mr. Porro was not offered and did not request an explanation as to how the total amount due was calculated. He received a receipt that appears to have been signed by Ms. Vath. After Mr. Porro paid the money, Ms. Vath remitted $2,000 to the court clerk for the two forfeited bonds. The Respondents retained the remaining $804. Bray was eventually apprehended and returned to custody. The Respondents were not involved in the apprehension. On July 11, 2000, the court refunded $1,994 to the Respondents. The refund included the $2,000 bond forfeitures minus a statutory processing fee of $3 for each of the two forfeited bonds. On August 9, 2000, 29 days after the court refunded the money to the Respondents, Mr. Porro received a check for $1,994 from the Respondents. Mr. Porro, apparently happy to get any of his money back, did not ask about the remaining funds and no explanation was offered. In November of 2000, Ms. Vath contacted Mr. Porro and informed him that a clerical error had occurred and that he was due to receive additional funds. On November 6, 2000, Mr. Porro met with Ms. Vath and received a check for $492. At the time, that Ms. Vath gave Mr. Porro the $492 check she explained that he had been overcharged through a clerical error, and that the additional amount being refunded was the overpayment minus expenses. She explained that the expenses included clerical and "investigation" expenses and the cost of publishing a notice in a newspaper. There was no documentation provided of the expenses charged to Mr. Porro. At the time the additional refund was made, there was no disclosure that the two $250 bonds were never forfeited. At the hearing, the Respondents offered testimony asserting that the charges were miscalculated due to "clerical" error and attempting to account for expenses charged to Mr. Porro. There was no reliable documentation supporting the testimony, which was contradictory and lacked credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order requiring that the Respondents be required to refund $318 to Mr. Porro, which, combined with the previous payments of $1,994 and $492, will constitute refund of the total $2,804 paid by Mr. Porro to the Respondents. It is further recommended that the limited surety licenses of Matilda M. Vath and John L. Vath be suspended for a period of not less than three months or until Mr. Porro receives the remaining $318, whichever is later. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street, Room 612 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact On April 26, 1989, Petitioner filed two applications for examination as a bail bondsman. Question 8 on the application inquires of the applicant as follows: Have you ever been charged with or convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to a crime involving moral turpitude, a felony, or a crime punishable by imprisonment of one year or more under the laws of any state, territory or country, whether or not a judgment or conviction has been entered? If yes, give date(s): What was the crime? Where and when were you charged? Did you plead guilty or nolo contendere? Were you convicted? Was adjudication withheld? Please provide a brief description of the nature of the offense charge: If there has been more than one such felony charge, provide an explanation as to each charge as an attachment. Certified copies of the information or indictment and final adjudication for each charge is required. On the first application, Petitioner responded N/A indicating not applicable to the inquiries listed in question 8 of the application for examination as bail bondsman. On a second application, Petitioner first listed not applicable to each inquiry and thereafter changed his responses to no, none and corrected each response by initiating each response where no was changed to none. This indicated that Petitioner reviewed his responses to the inquiries. Respondent introduced certified copies of court records involving Petitioner. A review of those records revealed the following criminal charges and dispositions: On or about July 27, 1960, Petitioner was charged with issuing a worthless check (Case No. 41684), a felony. On or about September 18, 1960 Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of issuance of a worthless check. On or about June 18, 1979, Petitioner was charged with false imprisonment (Case No. CRC7903814CFAN0), a felony. On or about October 10, 1979, Petitioner was found not guilty. On or about June 18, 1979, Petitioner was charged with battery (Case No. CTC7906981MMAN0), a crime involving moral turpitude. On or about November 13, 1979, Petitioner was found not guilty. On or about June 18, 1979, Petitioner was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor (Case No. CTC7906982MMAN0), a crime involving moral turpitude. On or about September 14, 1979 Petitioner was adjudged guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Petitioner failed to divulge the above charges and dispositions thereof on his applications for examination as bail bondsman (limited surety agent) which were submitted to Respondent. Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing to demonstrate in any affirmative manner, that he is qualified for licensure as a bail bondsman. Petitioner also failed to demonstrate that he is a person of high character and approved integrity and has not been convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony, a crime involving moral turpitude or a crime punishable by imprisonment of one year or more under the laws of Florida. In addition, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that since the occurrences of the foregoing charges and adjudications, he has rehabilitated his character such that he is presently qualified for licensure as a bail bondsman (limited surety agent).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for examination as bail bondsman (limited surety agent). DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 28th day of August, 1990.
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 Petitioner's application for licensure as a temporary limited surety/bail bond agent pursuant to Sections and 648.355, Florida Statutes, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying; documentary materials received into evidence; stipulations by the parties; evidentiary ruling made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes; and the record evidence submitted, the following relevant and material facts are determined: Pursuant to Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, Respondent has jurisdiction over bail bond licensure, appointments, and related activities. Petitioner appeared before the undersigned in this proceeding, identified himself and admitted that he is the individual prosecuted in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for, Hillsborough County, Florida, Case No. 88-CF-15373, State of Florida v. Bennie Small, Jr., on a Direct Information of two counts of grand theft, and that Respondent has jurisdiction over him and the subject matter involved in its denial letter. The record evidence demonstrated that on or about January 21, 1987, Petitioner entered into a real estate contract with Deltricia Wiggins, a prospective homebuyer. Ms. Wiggins, believing Petitioner to be the realtor representing the seller, gave Petitioner $500.00 to assist her in the purchase of the home. Thereafter, she became aware that the subject home had been sold and demanded that Petitioner return her $500.00. Petitioner failed or refused to return her $500.00. Ms. Wiggins contacted the Hillsborough County State Attorney's Office and made a report. At no time during the above transaction was Petitioner a licensed real estate sales person or licensed real estate broker. The record evidence demonstrated that Petitioner entered into a real estate contract with Janet Richardson, a prospective homebuyer. Ms. Richardson, believing Petitioner to be the realtor representing the seller, gave Petitioner $500.00 to assist her in the purchase of a family home. Thereafter, she became aware that the subject home had been sold and demanded that Petitioner return her $500.00. Petitioner failed or refused to return her $500.00. At no time during the above transaction was Petitioner a licensed real estate sales person or licensed real estate broker. On October 26, 1988, the State Attorney's Office filed a Direct Information charging Petitioner with two counts of grand theft. The two counts of grand theft stemmed from Petitioner's above two unlicensed real estate transactions. At some unknown time on or before January 5, 1989, Petitioner returned the money to both Misses Wiggins and Richardson. The fact that he subsequently returned money to his two victims did not negate his taking their money under illegal and false pretense. Record evidence demonstrated that on January 17, 1989, Petitioner was represented by the Office of the Public Defender of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for, Hillsborough County, Florida, in Case No. 88-CF-15373, and a plea of no contest to the charge of grand theft was entered on his behalf. Circuit Judge Harry Lee Coe accepted the plea of no contest on behalf of Petitioner, withheld adjudication of guilt, imposed no probation, and ordered that Petitioner not practice law nor practice real estate without appropriate licensure. Petitioner produced no record evidence that the no contest plea entered on his behalf by the public defender and that the judgment and sentence of the Court imposed by Circuit Judge Harry Lee Coe, of the Hillsborough County Circuit Court on January 17, 1989, in Case No. 88-CF-15373, has been overturned, reversed or set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. Petitioner, through his evidence and post-hearing submittals, presented the following arguments in support of his position that "he did not enter a plea of no contest to the grand theft charge." First, Petitioner argued that while in court, "he" personally did not enter a no contest plea. Second, he argued that "his" personal approval that a no contest plea be entered on his behalf was neither requested nor given to the public defender that represented him. Third, he argued that he was not made a party at the bench conference between the presiding Judge, the prosecutor, and his public defender, when discussions regarding the terms and condition of resolving his case were ongoing and concluded. Fourth, he argued that copies of the court docket sheet, recording entries written by the court's clerk, who sat in court and made each docket sheet entry as pronounced by the court, were insufficient to establish that those recorded actions were actually taken by the court. Because of the foregone alleged irregularities, argued Petitioner, there is no "official court record" of his having entered a no contest plea to the grand theft charge. Petitioner put forth no evidence in support of his several arguments challenging Respondent's denial of his license application. Petitioner proffered no evidence of the official judicial disposition of the two counts of grand theft filed against him. Petitioner failed to produce a scintilla of evidence in support of his assertions that Respondent did not fully comply with the Florida Statutes when Respondent, by letter dated June 2, 2003, informed Petitioner that his application for licensure as a surety/bail bond agent was denied, and the denial was based on a January 17, 1989, plea of no contest to the charge of grand theft, a felony, in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for, Hillsborough County, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's, Bennie Small, Jr., application for licensure as a temporary limited surety/bail bond agent. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was first licensed as a ball bondsman in 1961 or 1962. In 1969 (Exhibit 2), Petitioner was charged with being incompetent and untrustworthy as a bail bondsman, found guilty and placed on one year's probation which was successfully completed. In 1973, Petitioner was again charged with conducting himself in a manner unbecoming a bail bondsman (Exhibit 3). These charges alleged failure to return the premium paid on a supersedes bond when the prisoner was not released from jail on the bond and failure to maintain his office open to the general public as required. In the Final Order issued in this case, Petitioner was fined $850 and placed on probation for two years. Upon failure of Petitioner to comply with the terms of the Final Order, his license was revoked for a period of ten months after which the revocation was set aside and his license restored. In 1979, a hearing was conducted by the undersigned Hearing Officer on charges alleging that Petitioner had failed to maintain the minimum requirement for permanent office records and failed to maintain a place of business accessible to the public and be actively engaged in the bail bond business in violation of Chapter 64B, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was found guilty as charged, and the recommendation that his license be revoked was adopted by the Commissioner of Insurance in the Final order. In 1986, Petitioner was arrested for operating a donut shop in Tampa utilizing topless waitresses in violation of Tampa Ordinance 24-11. These charges were dismissed on appeal to the circuit court (Exhibit 5). Witnesses called by Petitioner included the attorney who prosecuted the 1979 case (Exhibit 4) against Respondent; the investigator who investigated the 1979 charges for the Department, and a sitting circuit court judge who filed an appeal of the 1979 revocation order on behalf of the Petitioner At the time the charges which led to the revocation were preferred, Respondent was without power to write bonds, but still had an obligation to service bonds still outstanding. The two witnesses who testified in these proceedings on the status of a licensed bail bondsman without power to write new bonds both concurred that this places a bail bondsman in the anomalous position of one who has no need for an office to provide bail bonds for the public but who still needs to be accessible to those clients for whom he has outstanding bonds. This distinction was not clarified at the 1979 hearing. All three witnesses who testified on behalf of Petitioner were aware of nothing that would disqualify Petitioner as a bail bondsman at this time. No evidence was submitted that Petitioner was convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, except for the admission by Petitioner that on or about August 11, 1966, he pleaded guilty to uttering a check without sufficient funds on deposit with which the check could be honored. This offense occurred more than 20 years ago and prior to Petitioner twice being found qualified for licensure by Respondent as a bail bondsman.
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 Phillip Anthony Ronca has been licensed and eligible for licensure and appointment as a limited surety agent in Florida, and the parties so stipulated. He holds licenses as a limited surety agent and as a professional bail bondsman, both issued by petitioner. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Respondent Ronca is the president and director of Ronca Bail Bonds, Inc., a Florida corporation transacting bail bond business from offices in Suite 12, 9719 South Dixie Highway in Miami, Florida, and has been at all pertinent times. He has no prior history of violating statutes or rules governing bail bond underwriting. On July 13, 1990, Mr. Ronca was at the Metro Dade County Jail at the corner of Northwest 12th Avenue and Northwest 14th Street in Miami, trying to locate Miguel Salamanca, whose lawyer had asked respondent to post bond, in order to accomplish his client's release. (The lawyer told him Mr. Salamanca had been arrested in the aftermath of a car wreck, but did not tell him which law enforcement agency had made the arrest or where the arrestee was being held.) Also present at the jail that day was Rina Romero (then surnamed Dillman) who, at the time, worked for a firm of private investigators retained by the "Dade County Bail Bondsmen Association to locate individuals, or bondsmen who were allegedly suspicious [sic] of soliciting business at the jail." T. 8- She had been shown respondent's photograph, and recognized him as one of seven or eight named "targets" of the investigation. Ms. Romero accosted respondent and related a tale of an apocryphal relative, purportedly confined on cocaine possession charges. In response to her specific questions, Mr. Ronca said bonds in such cases were set at $5,000 in Dade County, and that the premium for a bond in that amount was $500. He asked her questions about her putative relative, designed to ascertain the phantom detainee's whereabouts. Mr. Ronca never told Ms. Romero he was a bail bondsman, never offered to post bond for her (spurious) relative, and never requested the opportunity to do so. T. 75-76. He misrepresented no fact, and proposed no unlawful activity. At her request, as their brief conversation drew to a close, he gave Ms. Romero his business card, which proclaims "RONCA BAIL BONDS . . . Any Cost . Anytime . Anywhere." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. She testified she asked for the card so she could prove the fact of the encounter. T. 78, 79, 85. He testified he gave it to her only because she asked for it, and without any intention to advertise. T. 160, 161.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, recommended that petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint filed against respondent. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2279 Petitioner's proposed recommended order did not contain proposed findings of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 15 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 4, 5, 13 and 14 pertain to immaterial matters. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 6, the administrative complaint pleaded and respondent admitted 14th Street. With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 10 and 16 he never asked her for bail bonding business, or intended to violate applicable law. COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Gallagher, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Donald E. Petersen, Esquire 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399 Benedict P. Kuehne, Esquire Sonnet, Sale & Kuehne One Biscayne Tower, No. 2600 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131-1802
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.
