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 licensed as a limited surety agent, and he has been the chief executive officer of Big John’s Bail Bonds, Inc., which is located in Tampa (Big John’s). Donald Raymond Davis has known Respondent for ten years. From time to time, Mr. Davis has done bail bond pick- ups in which he, serving as a bounty hunter, locates and apprehends a person whose failure to appear in court has resulted in a bond forfeiture. Mr. Davis is a felon. His last conviction was in 1989 for a second-degree felony of threatening to discharge a destructive device, in violation of Section 790.162, Florida Statutes. The court sentenced him to 18 months in prison followed by one year of probation. Mr. Davis has been convicted of one or more other felonies. At all material times, Respondent was aware that Mr. Davis was a felon and was not licensed by Petitioner to engage in the bail bond business. In December 1999, Respondent asked Mr. Davis to locate and cause the apprehension of Hector Lopez, who had failed to appear in court concerning a drug charge. Due to his failure to appear, the court had ordered the forfeiture of a bond that Respondent had written. Upon the apprehension of Mr. Lopez, Respondent would pay Mr. Davis a ten percent commission (presumably calculated with reference to the bail amount or bail premium), less certain debts that Mr. Davis owed Respondent. Respondent also agreed to pay certain expenses of Mr. Davis in pursuing Mr. Lopez. After being retained, Mr. Davis examined the file, but found nothing that would help him find Mr. Lopez. Mr. Davis checked prior bookings and found a couple of co- defendants. By this means, Mr. Davis tracked down Mr. Lopez’s girlfriend, who resided in the Tampa Bay area. Visiting the girlfriend and claiming to be a bail bondsman, Mr. Davis learned that Mr. Lopez was enroute to the New Jersey/New York area. Mr. Davis departed for Fayetteville, North Carolina, where he contacted the girlfriend’s sister and mother. There, he learned that Mr. Lopez had been in Fayetteville, but had already left town on his way to New Jersey. Mr. Davis arrived in New Jersey near Christmas. He investigated the case until Christmas Eve, when he drove back to Florida. However, on January 2, 2000, Mr. Davis drove back to Patterson, New Jersey, to continue his search for Mr. Lopez. Arriving in northern New Jersey, Mr. Davis rented a motel room, from which he resumed his search for Mr. Lopez. By this time, Mr. Davis was out of money, so Respondent used his credit card to pay for the motel room and paid for other expenses, including an informant. Never more than one day behind Mr. Lopez, Mr. Davis beat the street in search of the bond principal. About to apprehend him in New Jersey, Mr. Davis retained the assistance of a New Jersey bondsman who provided four men, with whom Mr. Davis rushed Mr. Lopez’s New Jersey apartment--only to find it recently vacated. Searching the apartment, Mr. Davis found a telephone number for Mr. Lopez’s pager, and, by this means, located Mr. Lopez in the Bronx, New York. At 1:30 a.m. on January 19, 2000, Mr. Davis and now eight New Jersey men apprehended Mr. Lopez and took him to the Elmhurst Park Police Department in New Jersey. Mr. Davis had originally intended to bring Mr. Lopez back to Florida, but did not want to do so for fear that he would get into trouble for engaging in the bail bond business in Florida without a license. While communicating with the New Jersey police, Mr. Davis produced a false identification that he had purchased in North Carolina. After the New Jersey police confirmed the pending charges against Mr. Lopez and agreed to keep him in custody, Mr. Davis negotiated with the New Jersey bail bondsman a price of $2000 for the assistance that he had provided in the apprehension of Mr. Lopez. Respondent transferred this money to New Jersey for payment to the New Jersey bail bondsman. Mr. Lopez was eventually returned to Florida. Upon his return to Florida, Mr. Davis received from Respondent the sum of about $700 for his services in finding and apprehending Mr. Lopez. Respondent paid this sum even though, after the payment, Mr. Davis still owed Respondent some money. At all material times, Respondent employed Mr. Davis as an independent contractor, not an employee. All major factors support this finding. Mr. Davis controlled the means by which he performed the search and apprehension of Mr. Lopez. Payment of Mr. Davis was contingent upon the apprehension of Mr. Lopez. Respondent did not take withholding taxes or social security contributions out of any payments to Mr. Davis. At no time was Mr. Davis ever an employee, officer, director, or shareholder--directly or indirectly--of Big John’s. Mr. Davis was arrested in 2000 for the unlawful practice of the bail bond business. He pleaded guilty to this charge. The court sentenced him to 22 months in prison, but suspended the sentence, subject to successful completion of five years of probation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance dismiss the First Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd 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 23rd day of April, 2001. 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 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 or not Respondent's Florida Real Estate license should be disciplined because Respondent is guilty of and was found guilty of crimes which involve moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing for which he was confined in a state prison in violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(f) and (n), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints in particular Section 20.30, Florida Statutes and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate salesman in the state of Florida having been issued license No. 0463021 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On October 5, 1989, in Hillsborough County Court, Criminal Division, State of Florida, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the misdemeanors of prostitution and taking a minor in a vehicle with a malevolent intent, a local ordinance punishable as a misdemeanor. The Respondent was found guilty and sentenced to thirty days imprisonment and six months probation. On March 11, 1991 in the Hillsborough County Court, Criminal Division, State of Florida, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to two counts of petty theft. Respondent was found guilty of both counts and was placed on probation for six months to run consecutively on each count. Steven Pearce, Petitioner's investigator, spoke to Respondent about the nature of the charges alleged in the administrative complaint. Investigator Pearce made a series of calls to Respondent and during one of these calls, a discussion ensued relating to the complaint allegations filed against Respondent. During the second call which Investigator Pearce had with Respondent on June 25, 1991, a discussion was had regarding the petit theft charges and a series of other criminal charges which were filed against him. At the time of Respondent's written response to Investigator Pearce on June 12, 1991, he was incarcerated in Hillsborough County Jail for charges which he then contended that he was innocent. Specifically, he maintained in that letter as well as during the hearing that he was pulled into matters for which his son was involved and that he was in no manner responsible for the actions of his son. Respondent spent approximately forty-five days in the Hillsborough County Jail during 1989 at which time he made a no contest plea on October 5, 1989 because it would have taken approximately 21 more days for him to go to trial and he had, at that time, spent the maximum amount of time allowable for the charge for which he was being held. Prior thereto, Respondent had been incarcerated in the Sumter County Jail on a first degree murder charge where he remained for approximately 14 months and was thereafter released to Hillsborough County Jail. During his incarceration, Respondent's trial had been postponed approximately nine times and he repeatedly maintains that all of the allegations which he was being charged for dealt with activity engaged in by his son and "unbeknownst to" Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of having engaged in proscribed conduct within the purview of Subsections 475.25(1)(f) and (n), Florida Statutes as alleged in the administrative complaint. It is further recommended that Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson in Florida, license No. 0463021 be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 2nd day of June, 1992.
The Issue Whether respondent's license to practice optometry should be disciplined on charges that he failed to comply with, or violated, a lawful order of the Board of Optometry.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent was licensed as an optometrist, having been issued license number 0001338 by the Board of Optometry (P1, P2). On January 28, 1981, a Final Order was entered by the Board of Optometry which applied to respondent and his license to practice optometry. The Final Order, which resulted from a disciplinary proceeding against respondent, provided in pertinent part: That Respondent's license be suspended for a period of three months, to be served from February 5, 1981 to May 4, 1981, or immediately upon the lifting of any stay or other intervening legal process. During the period of suspension the Respondent may not hold himself out as an optometrist or practice optometry. That Respondent pay a fine of $500.00 for each count of the Administrative Complaint, for a total of $2500.00 to be paid as ordered in the imposition of probation on the Respondent. That the Respondent serve a period of probation of three years, which shall commence on May 5, 1981, or three months after the lifting of any stay or other intervening legal process. The terms of the probations shall be as follows: The Respondent shall obey all laws and regulations of the State of Florida. The Respondent shall inform the Board of any change of his address, including his residence address and all locations at which he practices optometry. The Respondent shall appear before the Board to report on his activities in six months and semiannually thereafter. The Board shall give the Respondent notice of those meetings held at or near Miami, Florida at which the Respondent should appear. The Respondent shall pay the fine of $2500.00 imposed by February 5, 1982, or one year after the lifting of any stay or other intervening legal process. (e.s.) Respondent appealed this Final Order to the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida, which upheld the order. Respondent then filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied by order of the Court, dated January 13, 1982. On January 21, 1982, respondent filed a motion for stay with the Florida Supreme Court, which motion was later withdrawn. (Testimony of Gardner, P-5, R-1, R-3). By letter dated January 22, 1982, respondent asked for permission to appear before the Board of Optometry on February 6 and 7, 1982, and further requested that the order, which he had unsuccessfully appealed, be stayed pending his appearance. When he appeared before the Board of Optometry on February 6, 1982, asking for a less severe penalty, the Board's attorney advised that due process had transpired and that the Board had no further jurisdiction to reopen the case. The Board took no action. (Testimony of Gardner, R-1, R-3) Under the Board's Final Order, respondent's license to practice optometry was effectively suspended from January 28, 1982 (15 days after the Third District's denial of his petition for rehearing), until April 28, 1982. This suspension commenced immediately upon the completion or lifting of all intervening legal processes. Under Rule 9.340, Florida Rules of Appellate procedure, that event took place 15 days from the Court's order denying rehearing. (Testimony of Gardner, P-2, R-1, R-3) Under paragraph 3.d) of the Final Order, the $2,500 fine became due and payable on January 28, 1983, one year after the lifting of any stay or the completion of the intervening legal process. Respondent, however, failed to pay the fine by January 28, 1983. (Testimony of Gardner, P-2, P-3) On or about March 8, 1983, Mildred Gardner, Executive Director for the Board of Optometry, sent a "bill" to respondent indicating that the payment of respondent's fine was past due. (Testimony of Gardner, P-4) On or about March 22, 1983, respondent paid, by check, the $2,500 fine to the Board of Optometry. The check was subsequently cashed by the Board without express reservation or protest. (Testimony of Gardner, respondent, P-3)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be administratively fined $500 for violating Section 463.016(1)(s), Florida Statutes (1981). DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R.L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 1983.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted a temporary bail bond license with the Florida Department of Financial Services?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure as a temporary resident surety agent (temporary bail bond agent) on or about December 31, 2008. The Department deemed his application completed on February 5, 2009. In November 1997 in Colquitt County, Georgia, Petitioner pled guilty to a felony charge of possession of more than one ounce of marijuana. He was placed on probation for a period of six years. Pursuant to the Georgia Probation for First Time Offenders Act, there was no adjudication of guilt by the court. On November 7, 2003, Petitioner successfully completed his probation. On November 13, 2003, the Superior Court of Colquitt County issued an order entitled “Record of Discharge and Exoneration of Defendant (First-Offender Act)”. The Notice of Discharge states in pertinent part: THEREFORE, IT IS NOTED AND RECORDED that in accordance with the provisions of the Probation of First Offenders Act (OCGA 42-8- 60 et. seq.): The defendant has been discharged without court adjudication of guilt; That the discharge completely exonerates the defendant of any criminal purpose; asks: That the discharge does not affect any of said defendant’s civil rights or liberties; The defendant is not considered to have a criminal conviction; and The discharge may not be used to disqualify a person in application for employment or appointment to office in either the public or private sector. (emphasis added) Question 3 on the Individual Application for New License Have you ever been charged, convicted, found guilty, or plead guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a felony or crime under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory, or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered? Yes/No Petitioner answered “no” to question 3 on the application for licensure. Question 20 on the Individual Application for New License asks: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or plead guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a felony under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory, or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or judgment of conviction was entered? Yes/No Petitioner responded “no” to question 20 on the Individual Application for New License. At the end of the application, just above his electronic signature, Petitioner checked a box manifesting agreement with the following declaration: Under the penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing application for license and that the facts stated in it are true. I understand that misrepresentation of any fact required to be disclosed through this application is a violation of the Florida Insurance and Administrative Codes and may result in the denial of my application and/or the revocation of my insurance license(s). The Department’s denial letter was based on Petitioner’s criminal history, as well as an allegation of failure to disclose same. Petitioner testified at hearing that during the process of completing his application as a bail bondsman, he sought the advice of an attorney regarding his Notice of Discharge and application. Petitioner received legal advice that his answer to the aforementioned questions should be “no.” Petitioner’s testimony in this regard is found to be credible and is accepted.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner’s application for licensure as a Temporary Resident Limited Surety Agent be granted. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 14th day of October, 2009.
Findings Of Fact On August 6, 1980, the Respondent Gerald B. Natelson, was charged in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, with violating Sections 841(a)(1) and 846, Title 21, USC, by knowingly and willingly, combining, conspiring, confederating and agreeing with others to distribute and possess with intent to distribute, marijuana, methaqualone and hashish, Schedule I and II controlled substances. The Respondent Natelson pled guilty to violating Sections 841(a)(1) and 846, Title 21, USC, as charged in Count I of the Indictment, by knowingly conspiring with others to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. The amount or quantity of marijuana which was involved in the conspiracy set forth in Count I, is not identified in the Indictment, the Judgment and Probation/Commitment Order entered December 22, 1980, or Judge Aronovitz's Order Granting Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence, and Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Natelson v. United States, Case No. 82-542 SMA, entered May 10, 1982. The Indictment, at paragraphs 12, 14 and 22, sets forth the Respondent's involvement in the conspiracy, which consisted of meeting in Hollywood and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on April 1 and 4, 1979, and Phoenix, Arizona, on June 1, 1979, with specifically named co-conspirators. Jose Fanelo, president of Universal Casualty Insurance Company and formerly regional director for the Department of Insurance, and Les Lloyd, regional investigator for the Department of Insurance, established that the Respondent had been a fit and trustworthy insurance agent. Additionally, the Respondent submitted various documents, identified as Respondent's Exhibits 2- 13, which support the opinions expressed by Fanelo and Lloyd that the Respondent is a fit and trustworthy insurance agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order dismissing its Administrative Complaint against the Respondent Gerald B. Natelson. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George Thomas Darby, at all times relevant to these proceedings, was licensed as a professional bail bondsman and limited surety agent. The Respondent was previously licensed as an ordinary-combination life, including disability agent, but such license expired on March 30, 1981. On January 7, 1982, a grand jury indictment was issued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Panama City Criminal Division, against the Respondent, George Thomas Darby. The indictment specifically charged that the Respondent: Did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate agree, and have a tacit understanding with other stated individuals to possess with the intent to distribute more than 1,000 pounds of the Schedule I control substance marijuana, in violation of Sections 841 and 846 of Title 21 of the United States Code. Did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate agree, and have a tacit understanding with other specified persons to import into the United States the Schedule I control substance marijuana in violation of Sections 952 and 963 of Title 21 of the United States Code. Did knowingly and intentionally import into the United States a Schedule I control substance in violation of Section 952 of Title 21 and Section 2 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Did knowingly and intentionally possess with the intent to distribute the Schedule I control substance marijuana in violation of Section 841 of Title 21 and Section 2 of Title 18 of the United States Code. On July 14, 1982, George Thomas Darby was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Panama City Criminal Division, as follows: Defendant has been convicted as charged of the offense of from on or about January, 1975, until the date of the indictment, in the Northern' District of Florida and elsewhere, knowingly combining, conspiring, and agreeing with others to import marijuana into the United States, in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code, Sections 952 and 963, as charged in Count 111(3) of the indictment. Pursuant to the above conviction, the Respondent, George Thomas Darby, was sentenced to a term of five years imprisonment and fined $15,000. The Respondent, by answer, admitted and further, at the formal hearing by stipulation, accepted as true the following facts: That you, George Thomas Darby, on or about July 14, 1982, in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Florida, in Case No. MCR 82-00203-07, were found guilty of knowingly combining, conspiring and agreeing with others to import marijuana into the United States, in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code, Sections 952, and 953, as charged in Count 111(3) of a previous grand jury indictment, Criminal Case No. MCR82-00203. The violation of either of the aforementioned titles is a felony as defined by Title 18, U.S.C. Section I(1). The Respondent has been licensed as a professional bail bondsman since October, 1976. His primary business as a bail bondsman has been in Jackson County, Florida. The Respondent has had no prior criminal convictions and no complaints or other disciplinary actions by the Department of Insurance against any license held by him from that Department. The Respondent has voluntarily ceased writing bail bonds since February of 1982, to the date of the hearing. Prior to the above-referenced conviction, the Respondent enjoyed a reputation as an honest, hardworking, and law-abiding citizen in the Jackson County area. On January 31, 1983, Clyde M. Taylor, Jr., Esquire, counsel for the Respondent in the above-referenced criminal action, filed an appellate brief in the United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit on behalf of George Thomas Darby, seeking to reverse the July 14, 1982, district court conviction. At the time of the formal hearing, this appeal was pending.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order dismissing its Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, George Thomas Darby. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Clark R. Jennings, Esquire Department of Insurance Suite 413-B, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Clyde M. Taylor, Jr., Esquire 1105 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner completed an application for issuance of a Class "C" Private Investigator License. That license request was denied on October 30, 1991. On November 20, 1991, Petitioner challenged the denial leading to the formal hearing held pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The statement of denial was amended on December 23, 1991. The reasons in the amendment are associated with Petitioner's criminal law history. The amended statement of denial frames the dispute. Petitioner was charged in the case of United States of America v. Hugh Mattingly Padgett, Jr., No. 63-230-CR-J, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, with having in his possession and custody, and under his control, a still and distilling apparatus set up, which had not been registered as required by law, in violation of Title 26 U.S.C., Section 5601(a)(1). He was convicted in that case upon a plea of guilty and fined $500. He was given a nineteen month sentence with was suspended upon service of probation for three years under supervision. The judgement and order of probation was entered on January 31, 1964. The probation was terminated after two years of service. That action by the Court shortening the probationary period was by order drawn on January 17, 1966. On May 8, 1981, in Hunterton County, New Jersey, Petitioner was convicted of distributing a controlled substance, methaqualone; possession of that controlled substance; possession of that controlled substance with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute that controlled substance. For this conviction he received a prison term totalling ten years and a $45,000 fine. Petitioner served the prison sentence in New Jersey. There was a Florida criminal law case which was basically the factual counterpart to the New Jersey prosecution. That case was State of Florida v. Hugh M. Padgett, Jr., No. CF880-2813A2-XX, in the Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Polk County, Florida. On June 27, 1989, Petitioner plead guilty to the Florida case. That plea pertained to a violation of the Florida Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organization Act, Section 943.462(3), Florida Statutes, and trafficking in methaqualone more than five kilograms but less than 25 kilograms, a lesser included offense, Section 893.135(1)(e)3, Florida Statutes. Part of the sentence which Petitioner was given in the Florida case involving the controlled substance methaqualone was a five year mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to Section 893.135(1), Florida Statutes. For entering his plea the court sentenced the Petitioner to a period of eight years concurrent time with 192 days credit for jail time served. Later by order of February 14, 1990, in connection with the case, Petitioner was given credit for 894 days of jail time served, reflecting credit for time spent in New Jersey awaiting return to Florida. The two cases involving controlled substances stem from activities by the Petitioner in 1980 in both Florida and New Jersey. Concerning the 1964 Federal conviction, Petitioner acknowledges that he knew of the operations of what he referred to as a "moonshine still" but denies that he received any money from that operation beyond rent money from the person to whom he had rented a house and upon which property the still had been found.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which denies the application for a Class "C" Private Investigator License. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 21st day of April, 1992. Copies furnished: Ronald L. Jones, Esquire Jones and Koch 1200 East Lafayette Street, Suite 108 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary, Department of State The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
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
Findings Of Fact On Tuesday, April 24, 1979, respondent went to the home of Alberta Cross in Melbourne, Florida, to see Ms. Cross' daughter, Sandra Young, mother of his two children. At the time, respondent was having an argument with Sandra Young. Frank Bell, a friend of Ms. Cross for several years, was at her house when respondent called on Ms. Young. Mr. Bell pointed a gun at respondent and ordered him off the property. Ms. Young threw herself between respondent and Mr. Bell and then left with respondent in the van in which he had arrived. After talking things over with a friend, respondent decided to swear out a warrant for Mr. Bell's arrest. As a result, Mr. Bell was arrested the following day. He was released from jail on bond, on April 26, 1979, a Thursday. Some seven years earlier, Mr. Bell and respondent had confronted one another at Ms. Cross' house. On that occasion, too, Mr. Bell pointed a gun at respondent. Between 5:00 and 5:30 on the afternoon of April 26, 1979, Mr. Bell arrived at the home of Linda Marie Harden. Ms. Harden lived within sight of respondent's father's house. A little before 7:00 o'clock on the evening of April 26, 1979, Mr. Bell left the Harden residence in a 1964 Chevrolet sedan. Both windows on the left hand side of the vehicle were rolled up. The left front door window was held together with tape and could not be rolled down. The left front door could not be opened from the inside of the car. As Mr. Bell turned a corner in front of respondent's father's house, respondent took up position with a shotgun, threw a cinder block at the car, and, when Mr. Bell turned around to see what had caused the noise, fired a single shot which blew out both windows on the left hand side of the car, hit Mr. Bell in the left shoulder, forehead, back of his head, and left eye, knocked him over in his seat, and resulted in his hospitalization for nine days. After the shooting, respondent fled. Respondent could have avoided a confrontation with Mr. Bell by taking cover. Respondent's father and respondent's son were sitting in the front yard with respondent, beside one of two vans parked in the front yard, when respondent first spotted Mr. Bell's car. Respondent's father grabbed his grandson and ran for the house before the shooting. Instead of making a run for the house or taking shelter behind a van, respondent threw the cinder block and fired the shotgun. When the police arrived, they found a pistol on the right hand side of the floor in the back of Mr. Bell's car. Mr. Bell did not point this gun at respondent on April 26, 1979; Mr. Bell did not even see respondent before the shot was fired. As a result of these events, respondent was tried on charges of aggravated battery. In those proceedings, as in these, he raised the defense of self defense. The criminal trial eventuated in an acquittal. Three young people, including two of respondent's former students, witnessed the shooting. News of the incident spread rapidly. The next day, respondent's principal received eight to ten telephone calls from parents with remarks like "Surely you won't let a murderer stay in the classroom." Other parents complained in person and two students mentioned the incident to the principal. Respondent was suspended on April 27, 1979, and subsequently fired, by the Brevard County School Board. After respondent's acquittal, 120 students signed a petition for his reinstatement.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Education suspend respondent's teaching certificate for three years. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 110 North Magnolia Drive Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. Anthony Cleveland, Esquire 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
