The Issue Whether Petitioner, the spouse of an inmate of the Florida correctional system, has standing to challenge Florida Administrative Code Rule 23-21.0155, which provides that if the Commission declines to authorize the effective parole release date of an inmate referred for extraordinary review, the Commission must suspend the established presumptive parole release date until the inmate is found to be a good candidate for parole release.
Findings Of Fact On October 10, 1995, Petitioner married Anthony Ray Peek, an inmate housed in a Department of Corrections facility. Mr. Peek is serving a parole-eligible sentence pursuant to chapter 987, Florida Statutes. On September 1, 2010, Petitioner appeared and spoke at a Commission hearing convened to determine whether to authorize Mr. Peek?s presumptive parole date of September 29, 2010. By order dated September 2, 2010, the Commission decided not to authorize Mr. Peek?s presumptive parole date, and referred the case for extraordinary review pursuant to rule 23-21.0155. On November 9, 2010, the Commission entered an order by which it determined that it would not authorize an effective parole date for Mr. Peek, that his presumptive parole release date remained suspended, and established May, 2017, as the date for Mr. Peek?s next extraordinary review interview. The Commission?s action applied the standards for placing an inmate on parole established in section 947.18, Florida Statutes. In taking its action, the Commission utilized the procedures for extraordinary review established in rule 23-21.0155, which provides, in its entirety, that: 23-21.0155 Extraordinary Review Procedures. When an inmate?s case is referred for extraordinary review by the Commission, an order shall be prepared outlining the reason(s) for the Commission?s decision. The order shall be acted upon by the Commission within 60 days of the decision declining to authorize the effective parole release date. The Commission?s order shall specifically state the reasons for finding the inmate to be a poor candidate for parole release pursuant to Section 947.18, F.S., and shall identify the information relied upon in reaching this conclusion. Additionally, the order shall suspend the established presumptive parole release date until such time that the inmate is found to be a good candidate for parole release. The determination, on extraordinary review, that an inmate is not a good candidate for parole release shall have the effect of overriding his presumptive parole release date however, the inmate shall continue to receive extraordinary interviews, which shall be scheduled pursuant to Rule 23-21.013, F.A.C. If upon extraordinary review, a majority of the Commission finds the inmate to be a good candidate for parole release pursuant to Section 947.18, F.S., the Commission shall enter a written order authorizing the effective parole release date and outlining the term and conditions of parole. Specific Authority 947.002, 947.07 FS. Law Implemented 947.002, 947.07, 947.18 FS. History–New 8-1-83, Formerly 23-21.155, Amended 8-17-06. Had he been released from prison on parole, Mr. Peek would have had the opportunity to live with Petitioner. As a result of the Commission?s action, Petitioner is not able to live and cohabitate with Mr. Peek as a married couple.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Insurance, should pay reasonable attorney fees and costs to Crudele under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes (1997), the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, after Crudele appealed and reversed the Department's Emergency Order of Suspension.
Findings Of Fact On July 15, 1996, the Department issued an Emergency Order of Suspension of Crudele's eligibility for licensure and license as a Florida life insurance agent and life and health insurance agent. The Emergency Order of Suspension was based on alleged violations of the insurance code in connection with the surrender of insurance annuities for purchase of a startup company's unsecured promissory notes. It stated: Based on the foregoing specific facts and for the reasons of protecting the insurance-buying public and insurers from further harm, preventing further abuses of fiduciary relationships, and preventing further defrauding of insureds and insurance companies by the [Petitioner], the Insurance Commissioner finds that [Crudele] constitutes and is an immediate and serious danger to public health, safety, or welfare necessitating and justifying the Emergency Suspension of all licenses and eligibility for licensure and registrations heretofore issued to [Crudele] under the purview of the Department of Insurance. The danger, more specifically, is to the insurance-buying public which must place its trust in the honesty and competence of insurance agents. The trust involves the responsibility that insurance agents have for fiduciary funds accepted by them and insurance matters entrusted to them. The danger is clear and present that failure to properly handle such funds and matters may cause serious losses and damage to the insurance-buying public. Prior to issuance of the Emergency Order of Suspension, the Department received two verified complaints--one by the alleged victim, and the other by her adult daughter. The complaints alleged essentially: Crudele was introduced to Mary Clem, an 84 year-old widow of a tenant farmer, by Charles Perks, Clem's insurance agent, in 1992. In 1992, Crudele and Perks solicited and sold Clem two annuities for a total of $50,000, representing Clem's life savings from working in sick people's homes as a nurses aide. A year after selling the annuities, Crudele and Perks returned to Clem and convinced her to invest the money she had in her annuities into a new company called Zuma that was to recycle automobile tires into useful products. Crudele and Perks represented that Zuma was a "sure fire business." They said they were offering Clem the opportunity to get "in on the ground floor" and that the stock would then go on the open market and double in value. Clem did not have a great deal of education and had no experience investing in stocks or bonds. Her sole source of income was Social Security plus her modest savings. She conceded that when she was offered a 12% interest rate, she found the offer too irresistible to refuse. Neither Crudele nor Perks gave Clem a prospectus or any other descriptive brochure about Zuma. Clem purchased a total of three Zuma promissory notes at three separate times for a total of $60,000. This represented the bulk of her retirement savings. Clem acted based on her trust and confidence in Crudele and Perks. Clem later went to a lawyer to draft a will. The lawyer became very concerned about Clem's purchases of the Zuma promissory notes and her inability to understand the nature of the transaction. Clem was not getting any of her payments from Zuma as promised. Clem was "going out of her mind" with worry. She summoned her daughter, Roberta Anderson, to come down to Florida from Indiana to investigate the matter. Anderson was unable to contact Crudele, and he did not contact her. Anderson and Clem were not aware of any efforts on Crudele's part to recover the funds or otherwise remedy the situation. After a great deal of effort, Anderson was able to recover approximately $23,000 of her mother's money. Crudele apparently played no part in helping Anderson recover the $23,000. The Zuma notes went into default, and apparently the remainder of the money was lost. Clem suffered a very serious financial loss that, given her circumstances, she could ill afford. It may be inferred from the evidence that the Department based its Emergency Order of Suspension on the Clem and Anderson verified complaints. There was no evidence of any other basis for the Emergency Order of Suspension. There was no evidence as to whether the Department conducted any investigation of any kind prior to entry of the Emergency Order of Suspension. Nor is there any evidence as to the Department's decision-making process. The Emergency Order of Suspension stated: (1) that it was being issued pursuant to "sections 120.59(3) [and] 120.60(8) [now Section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes (1997)], Florida Statutes [1995]; (2) that Crudele had "the right to request a hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.59(4), Florida Statutes [1995]"; and (3) that Crudele "was entitled to seek review of this Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes [1995], and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure." The Emergency Order of Suspension also stated that an Administrative Complaint seeking final disciplinary action would be filed within 20 days. On July 15, 1996, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint on essentially the same allegations as those in the Emergency Order of Suspension. Crudele sought judicial review of the Emergency Order of Suspension in the District Court of Appeal, First District. On August 19, 1997, the court issued an Opinion reversing the Emergency Order of Suspension because it did not "set forth particularized facts which demonstrate sufficient immediacy or likelihood of continuing harm to the public health, safety, and welfare to support a suspension of his license without notice and hearing." The court's Mandate issued on September 4, 1997; it referred to the court's Opinion and commanded that "further proceedings, if required, be had in accordance with said opinion, the rules of Court, and the laws of the State of Florida." The Administrative Complaint filed against Crudele was given Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Case No. 97-2603. On February 17, 1998, a Final Order sustaining some of the charges and suspending Crudele's license and eligibility for licensure for six months was entered in Case No. 97-2603.
Findings Of Fact Ernest Brown is a registered real estate salesman holding a registration issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Brown received notice of the instant hearing as required by the statutes and rules. His probation officer testified she had contacted him and he had advised her that he would not attend the proceedings. Brown was placed on probation with an adjudication of guilt withheld by the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, on January 25, 1989 (see Exhibit 2). Paragraph 10 of the conditions of probation requires that Brown serve 180 days in the Pinellas County Jail on weekends from 7:00 p.m. Friday until 7:00 p.m. Sunday. Because of the appeal of his case, Brown did not begin serving this jail term until August 24, 1989. He has served 72 of the 180 days according to the records of his probation officer. Brown is currently in the custody of the State's probation department.
Recommendation The Board's counsel advised the Hearing Officer after hearing that Respondent had surrender his license. This constitutes an ex parte communication of which notice is hereby given to all parties. This fact is immaterial to consideration of the matter at hand. The Board has long taken the position, quite correctly, that surrendering of a license did not impair jurisdiction to consider violations of its statutes by a licensee while licensed. Similarly, surrender of a license cannot terminate the Hearing Officer's consideration of the matter after hearing. The instant case was duly heard and the Recommended Order prepared prior to receipt of any pleadings relative to surrender by Brown of his license. At this point, the Board may accept surrender of the license and dismiss the Administrative Complaint, in which case Brown would be considered not to have had any disciplinary action against him, or the Board may enter its final order based upon the record and this Recommended Order. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the license of Ernest Brown. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Ernest B. Brown 2027 Thirteenth Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33172
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, Roger Smith, is an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, the Florida Parole Commission, including the Challenged Rule. The Petitioner is serving a "parole eligible sentence." The Petitioner's eligibility for parole has been determined by the Respondent. The Petitioner was convicted of the offense of escape and, therefore, the Respondent applied the Challenged Rule to the Petitioner. The Respondent. Sections 947.07 and 947.13, Florida Statutes, authorize the Respondent to adopt rules governing the parole of inmates in the State of Florida. Among other things, Section 947.13, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Respondent to determine who is placed on parole and to fix the time and conditions of parole. Pursuant to Sections 947.07 and 947.13, Florida Statutes, the Respondent promulgated the Challenged Rules. Rule 23-21.018(1) and (7), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 23-21.018(1) and (7), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: Vacation of presumptive or effective parole release date: The exiting of an inmate from the incarceration portion of his sentence, which shall include but not be limited to bond, escape, parole or MCR release, expiration of sentence, or transfer to a mental health facility, shall vacate any established presumptive parole release date. Any subsequent return to incarcerations will require an initial interview to establish a presumptive parole release date. Provided, however, inmates returning to court for modification of a previously imposed sentence or as witnesses shall not have their presumptive parole release dates vacated. Inmates returning to courts outside of Florida's jurisdiction, i.e, Federal or other state, shall not have their presumptive parole release dates vacated. However, information resulting from disposition of cases in court may be used as new information in accordance with applicable law and these rules. Inmates transferred to a Mentally Disordered Sexual Offender Program shall not have their presumptive parole release dates vacated. . . . . Conviction for crimes committed while incarcerated: Escape or any other crime committed during incarceration with an ensuing conviction and sentence vacates any previously established presumptive parole release date and shall cause the inmate to be considered a new admission. If the inmate is found to be eligible for consideration for parole, the Commission shall aggregate.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified correctional officer, failed to maintain good moral character by pleading guilty to the felony charge of child neglect pursuant to Subsection 827.03(3), Florida Statutes (2002), as set forth in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Veronica A. Smith, is a certified correctional officer in the State of Florida. She was issued Correctional Officer Certificate No. 135464 on December 11, 1992. Respondent was employed by the Lee County Sheriff's Office as a correctional officer during the period September 21, 1992, through June 24, 2002. On or about June 12, 2002, Respondent was charged by Information with two counts of felony child neglect in violation of Subsection 827.03(3), Florida Statutes (2002), by the state attorney for the Twentieth Circuit Court, Lee County, Florida. On or about May 27, 2003, Respondent, while represented by counsel and in open court, withdrew her previous plea of "not guilty" to the Information and entered a plea of guilty to one count of felony child neglect before the circuit court for Lee County, Florida, State of Florida v. Veronica Smith, Case No. 02-1878CF. Said plea was accepted and the court entered an Order Withholding Adjudication dated May 27, 2003, which withheld adjudication of guilt but placed Respondent on probation for a period of two years under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. Following notification of her arrest, the Lee County Sheriff's Office opened an internal affairs investigation relating to the underling charges which resulted in her termination on June 24, 2002, from her position as Bailiff Corporal with the Lee County Sheriff's Department. By pleading guilty to felony child neglect, Respondent has failed to uphold her qualifications to be a correctional officer by failing to maintain her good moral character. Although Respondent's employment record does not show any prior disciplinary violations, she has failed to produce any evidence in explanation or mitigation of the conduct which resulted in her arrest and plea before the circuit court or in her termination of her employment with the Lee County Sheriff's Office.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order as follows: Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2002). Respondent's certification as a correctional officer be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2004, 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 28th day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Veronica A. Smith Post Office Box 6812 Fort Myers, Florida 33911 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Petitioner, Ernest Walker, was an inmate incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution. Respondent is a state agency charged by law with determining what persons may be placed on parole, fixing the timing conditions of parole, and determining violations of parole. Respondent is charged by Section 947.16, Florida Statutes, with the responsibllity of interviewing inmates, and establishing presumptive parole release dates, and thereafter reviewing those dates. Pursuant to its statutory charge, Respondent conducted an interview of Petitioner, Ernest Walker, and established his original presumptive parole release date to be June 21, 1988, by action certified by Respondent on September 2, 1981. Subsequently, in special Commission action taken on October 17, 1983, Petitioner's PPRD was extended to June 21, 2008, based upon the receipt of a mental health status report, which, according to the record in this cause, was treated as "new information" not available at the time the Petitioner's initial PPRD was established.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against her and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since November 29, 2001, certified as a correctional officer in the State of Florida. She holds Correctional Certificate Number 2000056. Javeres Kendrick and Willie Kendrick are Respondent's brothers. Respondent has lived in the same residence as her brother Javeres her entire life. Since February of 1999, when they were placed on probation for committing the felony crime of lewd and lascivious assault on a child under 16 years of age, Javeres Kendrick and Willie Kendrick have been under the supervision of the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC). On or about November 27, 2000, Respondent completed and submitted to the Department of Corrections (DOC) a Correctional Officer/Correctional Probation Officer Supplemental Application. At the time, she did not have any training or experience as correctional or probation officer. Question 4 on this employment application asked: Do you have a business or personal relationship with anyone presently incarcerated or under the supervision of the Florida Department of Correction's system? If yes, give name, relationship, and place of incarceration/supervision. Respondent answered this question by checking "No." In doing so, she believed that she was providing accurate information to DOC. Although she was aware that her brothers were on probation, she did not understand them to be "incarcerated or under the supervision of the Florida Department of Correction's system," within the meaning of the question, because they were not in state prison. Furthermore, in her mind, she had a familial, not a "business or personal relationship" with her brothers.3 Respondent was ultimately employed by DOC as a correctional officer and assigned to Broward Correctional Institution (BCI). On September 18, 2003, a team of DOC correctional probation officers (Team), consisting of Raul Fernandez, Sara Bermudez, and Juan D'Elia, accompanied by local law enforcement officers, including David Torres of the Miami-Dade County Police Department, went to the residence of Javeres Kendrick at 4270 Northwest 197th Street, Miami, Florida, to conduct a "pre- planned sex offender compliance check." The purpose of the Team's visit was to ascertain whether Mr. Kendrick was in compliance with the terms and conditions of his probation. When the Team arrived at the residence, Mr. Kendrick was outside washing a vehicle. The Team members exited their vehicles and walked up to Mr. Kendrick. They identified themselves as correctional probation officers and told Mr. Kendrick that they were there to make sure that he was in compliance with the terms and conditions of his probation. To do so, they advised him, they needed to search his bedroom (which they were authorized to do by the court order placing Mr. Kendrick on probation). Mr. Kendrick responded that his bedroom was "a mess" and that he wanted "to go and clean [it] up" before the Team conducted its search. Despite being told that he "couldn't do that," Mr. Kendrick "bolted" away from the Team members and went "inside the house." Officers Fernandez and D'Elia followed Mr. Kendrick to the front door of the residence, where they were met by Respondent, who "intercepted" them and blocked their paths, thereby "prohibit[ing] [them] from entering [the residence] immediately." While standing in their way and interrupting their pursuit of Mr. Kendrick, Respondent, using profanity, yelled at Officers Fernandez and D'Elia in a "hostile and belligerent" manner, expressing her strong displeasure over their presence at the residence. She told them that they "had no right to be there," adding that "every time [they] show[ed] up there [they] always w[ound] up arresting her brother."4 Respondent was asked at least twice to "please move," which she finally did, albeit "in a very slow and deliberate manner." Officer Fernandez instructed Respondent to "take the children out of the residence and to wait outside until [the Team] conducted [its] search." With Respondent out of the way, Officer Fernandez and D'Elia entered the residence. Officer D'Elia spotted Mr. Kendrick "in the second bedroom on the left." Mr. Kendrick had his hand in a chest drawer. While Officer D'Elia "secured" Mr. Kendrick, Officer Fernandez searched the drawer and found "paraphernalia used for the pack[ag]ing of narcotics" and baggies containing what appeared to be cocaine and marijuana. After this discovery was made, Respondent came into the bedroom (contrary to the instructions she had been given) and asked "how much longer [the Team] had left." A conversation between Officer Fernandez and Respondent ensued, during which Officer Fernandez informed Respondent about "the narcotics that were in the drawer." Upon being so informed, Respondent, with the intent to deceive the Team, falsely claimed that the bedroom in which the "narcotics" had been found was not her bother Javeres' bedroom. Rather, she told Officer Fernandez and the other Team members, the bedroom had last been occupied by her uncle, who "had wound up going to jail." As the Team was leading him away from the residence, Mr. Kendrick asked Respondent to "retrieve" for him from "his room" a pair of pants, socks, and tennis shoes that he could wear in jail. Complying with this request, Respondent, followed by Officer Bermudez, went straight to the bedroom in which the "narcotics" had been found (which was Mr. Kendrick's bedroom, contrary to what Respondent had previously claimed) and "retrieve[d]" the items her brother had requested. During her dealings with the Team that day, Respondent revealed that she was a correctional officer at BCI. Upon returning to his office, after having "finished processing Mr. Kendrick and logging in the evidence" seized from Mr. Kendrick's bedroom, Officer Fernandez complained to his supervisor about Respondent's hostile and obstructive conduct during the Team's "compliance check" at Mr. Kendrick's residence earlier that day. Inasmuch as Respondent was a DOC employee, Officer Fernandez's supervisor referred the matter for an internal affairs investigation pursuant to DOC policy. Scott Thomas, a senior prison inspector with DOC, conducted the investigation. As part of his investigation, Inspector Thomas reviewed the contents of Respondent's DOC personnel file (including the employment application she had submitted on November 27, 2000) and obtained sworn affidavits from Officers Fernandez, Bermudez, and D'Elia. In addition, on November 12, 2003, he interviewed Respondent under oath. During the interview, among other things, Respondent repeated the falsehood that the bedroom in which the "narcotics" had been found during the September 18, 2003, "compliance check" was not her brother Javeres' bedroom. In addition, she falsely denied ever having used "profanity towards the [Team] members" conducting the "compliance check" and further falsely denied that that the Team members, during the September 18, 2003, "compliance check," ever told her to "wait outside the house." Respondent made these statements to Inspector Thomas knowing that they were not true. Inspector Thomas determined from his investigation that Respondent had "provided untruthful information" on her November 27, 2000, employment application and that she had engaged in "conduct unbecoming" a DOC employee during the September 18, 2003, "compliance check" at her residence. Based on the findings of Inspector Thomas' investigation, Respondent's employment with DOC was terminated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of Allegation Two and Three and, based on these findings of guilt, revoke her certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 2004.
