Findings Of Fact Notice of this proceeding was provided Compton by registered mail return receipt requested at the last address provided the Florida Real Estate Commission by Compton and also at the forwarding address obtained by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Compton was arrested for failure to appear in court to answer a traffic citation, in the City of Hollywood, Florida. Compton was also arrested for possession of cannabis and found to be not guilty in the City Court of Pompano Beach. Compton was also named in an information charging him with burglary in California. He was placed on 5 years probation and proceedings were suspended by the Superior Court, Los Angelos County, California. These records were provided the Florida Real Estate Commission from the clerks of the courts named above. Investigator Freeman testified that because of Compton's vigorous denials, a second check of Compton's arrest records based upon fingerprint identification was made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which confirmed by fingerprint comparison that the records of arrests were those of the individual who applied for registration to the Florida Real Estate Commission as Ray F. Compton. Ray F. Compton concealed on his application for registration the fact that he had been arrested in Florida for failure to appear in Court, possession of cannabis and in California for burglary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the registration of Ray F. Compton be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Ray F. Compton 9134 Boyer Lane Mentor, Ohio 44060
The Issue This cause arose upon a denial of an application for licensure by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Denial was based upon the applicant's answer to question six of the licensing application regarding his prior criminal record under authority of Section 475.17(1), as well as 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979). Specifically, the Florida Real Estate Commission notified the Petitioner that the denial of the application was based upon the following: 1963 conviction of armed robbery 1965 conviction of false police report 1967 conviction of worthless check 1968 and 1971 convictions for public intoxication 1971 conviction for assault and battery 1976 and 1980 convictions for public intoxication 1982 indecent exposure charge The Petitioner requested a formal hearing to be permitted the opportunity to present testimony and evidence in support of his petition for application for licensure, and the cause ultimately came on for hearing on the above date after completion of discovery. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of two witnesses, including himself, as well as the testimony of a witness from out of state who was unable to attend, whose testimony was admitted in the form of an affidavit stipulated into evidence by the parties. The Respondent presented one witness. The Petitioner presented six exhibits, all of which were admitted into evidence. The Respondent presented four exhibits which were admitted into evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties requested the benefit of a transcript and the right to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were timely filed by the Respondent. All proposed findings of fact and supporting arguments of the parties have been considered. To the extent that the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the parties, and the arguments made by them, are in accordance with the findings, conclusions and views stated herein, they have been accepted, and to the extent that such proposed findings and conclusions of the parties, and such arguments made by the parties are inconsistent therewith, they have been rejected. Certain proposed findings and conclusions have been omitted as not relevant or as not necessary to a proper determination of the material issues presented.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a native of Ohio, having lived in that state until coming to the Ft. Myers area to live and enter business in 1980. Some twenty- one years ago, when he resided in Ohio at the age of thirteen years, he was charged with armed robbery, according to his arrest record in evidence. On that occasion, he was placed in the custody of the Ohio Youth Commission and placed in an industrial school for boys. Again, on September 9, 1965, he was arrested for making a false police report and was returned to the custody of the Ohio Youth Commission as a juvenile offender once again. While originally in the industrial school for boys in Ohio pursuant to the first arrest, he was not permitted to attend high school classes because of a severe vision problem (nearly legally blind) and the school had no facilities for education of those with his visual handicap. He was tutored instead by a priest, apparently at the school. Prior to that, he had been formally educated up to and including approximately three months of high school. In Ohio, at that time, these acts were considered to be "juvenile acts of delinquency" and not classed as criminal convictions. Between May 24, 1968, and June 24, 1980, the Petitioner had seven arrests for public intoxication. Those arrests culminated in the payment of $25 fines, and in one instance, a $40 fine with no court appearance. In effect, the bond was estreated. On July 20, 1971, he was arrested for assault and battery and paid a $100 fine, again with no court appearance. All of these arrests, with the exception of the original armed robbery juvenile delinquency instance, were misdemeanors. All occurred in Dayton, Ohio. On November 23, 1982, by Order of the Montgomery County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division - the records of David Fugate were expunged. According to that Order, the court found that rehabilitation of the applicant, David Fugate, had been attained to a satisfactory degree and, accordingly, ordered that all records pertaining to David Fugate be sealed; that the proceedings in the case be deemed to have never occurred and that all index references to said applicant be deleted. This Order is somewhat ambiguous in that it mentions "case" in the singular, but then mentions all records pertaining to David Fugate and all "index references" referring to the applicant being deleted from his record and, further, that all copies of fingerprints or pictures taken of the applicant "in this cases" should be destroyed. It is not clear whether an expungement of all record of offenses committed in Ohio through 1980 was ordered, or merely of those matters involving the juvenile division of the court; that is, the three offenses occurring in 1963, 1965 and 1967. In any event, the Court's expungement of the applicant's "record in this court" is found to mean all three juvenile court offenses, especially in view of the applicant's and his corroborating witness' testimony. Further, with regard to the issue raised by the public intoxication charges (to the extent they may not have been expunged by the Order represented by Respondent's Exhibit 1), the Petitioner acknowledges that he had a drinking problem, related to marital difficulties, during his ten years of marriage. All those cases were misdemeanors and generally the subject of fines, not involving court appearances. Petitioner has since overcome his drinking problem, as evidenced in his unrefuted testimony, and that of witness Lawrence who has worked with him for approximately ten years and knows his personal habits quite well. It was thus established that the Petitioner has never had a problem with alcohol which interfered with his business and his relationship with the public and, indeed, his employer, witness Lawrence, was never aware that he had a drinking problem at all. Mr. Lawrence has employed the Petitioner over a period of approximately ten years in a finance company, loan and collection business. The Petitioner often was required to handle and transport large sums of money and never committed any dishonest act or irregularity concerning his handling of his employer's money. He has loaned several thousand dollars to the Petitioner and has been timely paid when any amounts came due and would not hesitate to enter into business dealings with the Petitioner in the future. Donald Jansen, a former professor in the areas of communication and criminal justice at Ohio State University, has known the Petitioner for approximately eighteen years. He first became acquainted with the Petitioner when the Petitioner was made a ward of the State of Ohio and placed in the Ohio Youth Commission Boys' Industrial School, where Mr. Jansen was employed at the time. One of his duties was to orient and counsel boys with regard to life at the school. He felt that David, the Petitioner, had a potential that most of the boys under his care did not have and he has maintained regular contact with him ever since. Petitioner worked with him as a volunteer in Dayton, 0hio, in the area of community contact work with youth in a salaried position and exhibited great concern for others, and in assisting young men who were in trouble, to better their lives. Mr. Jansen has observed Petitioner over the years and has observed the change in his attitude toward himself and others. He is more reliable than most people Mr. Jansen has dealt with and they have had financial dealings together in which the Petitioner has been honest and ethical in every way. He has never betrayed a trust and Mr. Jansen has placed thousands of dollars in the Petitioner's care in these financial dealings without regret. In the near future, he plans to engage in business with the Petitioner with proceeds of a large wheat farm which he plans to liquidate in the State of Nebraska. The Petitioner's conduct and attitude over the years shows that the Petitioner is determined to overcome his visual handicap and become a productive member of society, rather than seek public assistance and that he has genuinely rehabilitated himself in the long years since his more serious juvenile offenses. In that connection, this witness corroborated the testimony of the Petitioner in establishing that, indeed, the expungement order went to all three juvenile offenses, and, in the words of the court in that order, "the proceedings in such case be deemed never to have occurred." It is noted that the Petitioner, himself, established that his problem with alcohol was related to his domestic difficulties over a period of years and that with the resolution of those difficulties (his divorce) he has concomitantly overcome his alcohol problem. It has been clearly established that any problem with alcohol in the past has not interfered with his business and financial dealings. Indeed, his reputation for responsible conduct of his business affairs since arriving in Florida is demonstrated by the fact that he has recently been approved for a real estate mortgage loan in the amount of fifty-five thousand ($55,000) dollars together with an unsecured signature loan in excess of one thousand ($1,000) dollars. The Petitioner has achieved some financial success by his work in real estate investments, owning several parcels of real estate himself and serving as President of Florida Credit and Investment Corporation. The Petitioner's arrest in March, 1982, on a charge of indecent exposure, as freely admitted by the Petitioner, involved urination in a public place. The charge was nol prossed and the court informed the Petitioner that that event rendered the matter to be "as if it never occurred." Because of this belief, the Petitioner failed to list it on his application in answer to question number six. The Petitioner listed all other past charges or arrests, some of which were more serious, and failed to list the March, 1982, charge because he did not feel it relevant since the court informed him that he could conduct himself as if had not occurred. There was no showing of any facts surrounding that arrest which would demonstrate that the Petitioner is clothed with a character which might pose a danger to the interests of the public and investors if his registration and licensing were granted. In short, it has been established that the Petitioner has clearly attained rehabilitation from his earlier, aberrant behavior and that a sufficient lapse of time and subsequent good conduct reveals that the Petitioner's character is now such that he can be safely trusted with the affairs and finances of funds of members of the public who entrust their real estate and financial affairs to him in the capacity of a licensed realtor. The Petitioner has taken and passed the required real estate educational course and passed the test administered at the end of that course as a prerequisite to being admitted to the Florida real estate examination.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of David Fugate for a real estate salesman's license be GRANTED. D0NE and ENTERED this 26th day of 0ctober, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 26th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Fugate 1028 South East 18th Place Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Lawrence Gendzier, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Office of Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Keith T. Loggins, on August 13, 1982, under oath, signed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman of the Florida Real Estate Commission. This application was filed with the Florida Real Estate Commission on September 1, 1982. Question 6 on that form states: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? to which he answered, "No." This answer was false. Petitioner was arrested by the Orange County Sheriff's Office on November 14, 1972, on a charge of grand larceny in connection with a burglary and breaking and entering. Pursuant to a plea of guilty, he was placed on probation for five years. On May 23, 1974, Petitioner was arrested by the Osceola County Sheriff's Office on a charge of embezzlement, but was not tried, and the case was dropped. Petitioner denies any knowledge of possible grounds for this arrest. In May, 1975, Petitioner was convicted of a probation violation, and his probation was modified to include four months' confinement in county jail, and five months later, he was arrested for grand theft by fraud on insufficient fund check, convicted of grand larceny, and sentenced to serve five years in Florida State Prison. Thereafter, on August 6, 1975, Petitioner was convicted upon his pleas of guilty in Circuit Court for Orange County, Florida, on two separate cases involving obtaining property by worthless check written in March, 1975, one a felony count and one a misdemeanor count. He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on the felony and one year on the misdemeanor, the terms to run concurrently. On September 29, 1975, he was placed on probation for seven years to start upon his release from prison, which took place on August 1, 1978. His probation, which should have run to the end of July, 1985, was, however, terminated, and Petitioner was discharged on October 20, 1982, almost three years early because of the recommendations of his probation officer, Connie Reed, with the approval of her supervisor, Mr. Charles L. Steen. Since his release from prison in August, 1978, Petitioner has held numerous jobs ranging from that of a laborer to that of assistant manager of a motel. In each instance, he left the position of his own volition to improve his income or working hours. He has never been fired nor have there ever been any complaints about his work. He has held positions of trust and of responsibility and in several cases has had the requirement to handle, unsupervised, substantial sums of money. No shortages were discovered. In his last two positions, Petitioner has been a salesperson of time- sharing resort condominiums, as a salaried employee of the developer. He is very cautious in his approach and delivery to prospects because of the close scrutiny given this type of operation. Both his current and a prior supervisor indicate he has performed his duties satisfactorily, and they have not received any complaints about the Petitioner. Petitioner was quite frank about his past when interviewing for the positions and in no sense tried to hide his criminal record. In both jobs, Petitioner has handled funds of the company, and there has not been any indication of trouble or shortage. Petitioner wants the license to sell real estate because it would open the door for him to a much greater earning potential. In his current job, for example, he has earned $600 in the month he has been there. Had he had a salesman's license and been on a commission basis, his earnings would have been much higher. Additionally, receiving the license would give him a certain amount of status and an ego boost, especially after the way he started his adult life. Both Ms. Reed and Mr. Steen, his former probation officials, feel Petitioner has been fully rehabilitated entirely through his own motivation and effort. His early offenses were when he was a young man and influenced by the use of drugs which he no longer uses. Since his release from probation he has had only two traffic citations, one for failing to stop at a stop sign, and one for failing to yield the right-of-way, resulting in an accident. When Petitioner's application for a license was first denied, he requested an informal hearing before the Commission, at which time he told the members he knew when he filled out the application form if he answered accurately, there was no way he would get his license. He now admits that answering falsely was the wrong thing to do. He understood the question, and his answer was what he intended to say and not an error. He answered falsely because the most recent arrest was seven years old, and his current life-style is completely different than his life-style then. His prior arrests and convictions in a moral sense, he feels, have no bearing on his present life, and he felt he had paid his debts to society. He now realizes that his answer to Question 6 should have been accurate and to falsify was a mistake.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner be denied licensure as a real estate salesman. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 19th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard H. Hyatt, Esquire 918 North Main Street Kissimmee, Florida 32741 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street Room 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Florida Real Estate Commission, (Commission), was the state agency charged with the regulation of the profession of real estate in Florida and is the licensing agency for real estate salesmen and brokers. On or about April 20, 1988, the Petitioner, Christopher R. Murphy, prepared and submitted, along with the appropriate fee, to the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. At paragraph 6 of the application form appears the question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? Petitioner answered, "Yes (2)" to this question and consistent with further instructions on the form, indicated: August 9, 1978, arrested Lima, Peru, Charged with Traficking [sic] in cocaine, sentenced to 24 months Oct. 4, 1985, arrested in Jacksonville Florida, Charged with conspiracy to possess & distribute, sentenced 42 mos. At the hearing, Petitioner admitted that in 1978 he was arrested for trafficking in cocaine in Lima, Peru. He was in pretrial confinement for 27 months prior to his conviction, which, he claims, did not meet with the requirements of due process. The facts of the case were that he was in Peru with a friend who was in the cocaine business. It was his companion, not him, he claims, who had cocaine in his hotel room and because Petitioner was with him there, he, too, was charged. Petitioner admits that he knew his friend was in Peru to buy cocaine and that he went with him willingly, but claims that he was not a party to the purchase nor did he own or possess any of the cocaine. He also admits that in 1985 he was convicted in Jacksonville, Florida of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. He claims, however, that this conviction will be reconsidered by the court even though he admits to being guilty of the offense. There was, however, no evidence of any appeal of the conviction filed by Petitioner and his representation that his case will be reconsidered is based on his cooperation in an ongoing investigation about which he cannot speak. The fact remain that he has been convicted and the conviction still stands. Mr. Murphy was born in 1938 in Boston. In later years, his father worked as a civil engineer on the Saturn 5 project for NASA and he has lived in Florida for 30 years. He is presently a student of accounting due to graduate with a degree in education. He wants his real estate license because he is interested in real estate and in mortgage brokerage and wants to establish a family business, the prime thrust of which will be mortgage brokerage. Nonetheless, he feels a real estate license would go hand in glove with this end. Petitioner contends he disclosed everything in his application. As a result of the trial in Jacksonville, he was sentenced to three and a half years in prison. He was given credit for the 6 months pretrial confinement he spent in County Jail, served 18 months of the full term, and spent an additional 6 months in a halfway house. While in prison, he took college courses in real estate, finance, and management. By Order dated November 28, 1988, the Comptroller of the State of Florida, incorporated a Stipulation between the Department of Banking and Finance and the Petitioner which had the effect of granting Petitioner's application for a probationary mortgage broker's license, and he is currently so licensed in Florida. Mr. Murphy regrets his errors and claims he has left that part of his life behind him. He wants the license for which he has applied so that he can do something better with his life consistent with the plans mentioned previously. Kent Brink, a real estate broker in Odessa, Florida, has known Petitioner for approximately five years from the time when Petitioner first bought a piece of property through him. Since that time, he has gotten to know Petitioner socially as well and has mutual friends and business associates with him. He is aware of Petitioner's reputation for honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, and his reputation for good character within the community and it is good in all respects. He is aware of Petitioner's convictions and what they are for, and in spite of that, trusts him and would hire him if he were licensed. He would have no problem trusting his own reputation and the welfare of his clients with the Petitioner. Steven G. Burgess, the sales manager for Keystone Real Estate in Holiday, Florida, met the Petitioner about a year and a half ago and is aware of Petitioner's criminal record. Since their meeting, however, he has had numerous business dealings with the Petitioner and has found him to be reliable. He has had no problem trusting Petitioner and has found him to be totally honest. Petitioner's reputation for honesty, truthfulness, and good character in the community, as he knows it, is good. Sheryl Howard, a builder in Brooksville, Florida, has known Petitioner for approximately one year, having met him through a real estate transaction Petitioner had with her father. Petitioner came to work for her and her father in the building business. He was hired to work with punch lists and to run errands and in that capacity, he had to be trusted. He was given a key to the office without problem, and always accomplished the job requested of him, going beyond that which was required. She is aware of Petitioner's criminal record because he made it known to her. Nonetheless, if he is licensed, she would be happy to have him work for her and would trust him with access to her escrow account and her funds. Petitioner demonstrated exceptionally poor judgement as well as criminality in his involvement in the two offenses of which he was convicted. Even conceding that the lack of due process during his Peruvian conviction, he admitted he was there in the company of his friend who he knew was involved in an unlawful activity. Nonetheless, for the purpose of argument, disregarding that conviction, he also admits his involvement in and guilt of the cocaine offense in Jacksonville. There is no doubt that drug offenses are egregious and nefarious and his involvement therein indicates a complete disregard not only for the laws of this state and country, but for the welfare of his fellow citizens, the same group which would serve as potential clients were he to be licensed. Nonetheless, it would appear from the evidence presented by Petitioner and unrebutted by Respondent that he has changed and has been rehabilitated. The evidence shows he has been tested in the community since his release from prison, and has passed the test. He has shown evidence of an attempt to better himself through education and employment and has satisfied those for and with whom he worked that he can be trusted. It is found, therefore, that he has been rehabilitated and no longer presents a threat or danger to the interests of the public and investors with whom he is likely to come into contact.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Christopher R. Murphy, be deemed eligible to sit for examination for licensure as a real estate salesman in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of February, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 23rd day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4439 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein 3. & 4. Accepted as a reflection of the evidence Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted as a comment on the evidence Accepted and incorporated herein & 9. Accepted and incorporated herein By the Respondent: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph C. Stoddard, Esquire 132 Lithia Pinecrest Road Brandon, Florida 33511 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 212 400 West Robinson Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director DPR, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact On November 18, 1976, the Real Estate Commission received respondent's application for registration as a real estate salesman. In answering the sixth question on the application form, respondent indicated that he had never been arrested for any offense. In fact, respondent was arrested for driving while intoxicated in Ft. Lauderdale and was convicted of this offense in municipal court on September 22, 1960. On April 3, 1962, he was convicted in municipal court of assault and battery on the person of Jill Boyd an offense for which he was arrested in Ft. Lauderdale on March 27, 1962. He was arrested a second time for driving while intoxicated in Ft. Lauderdale and was convicted of this offense in municipal court on February 28, 1967. On still other occasions, respondent was arrested for public intoxication and for traffic offenses. Before submitting his application for registration as a real estate salesman, respondent enrolled at the Florida Real Estate Academy for a five day crash course. An instructor told his class that the Real Estate Commission checked only five years back for arrests.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's real estate salesman's license with leave to respondent to file a proper application. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmannp, III, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Michael Diamond Post Office Box 9206 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33310
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: Phillip S. Wong is a convicted felon. On December 6, 1982, after entering a plea of guilty, he was adjudicated guilty of one count of each of the following crimes: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill, in violation of Section 784.021(1)(a), Florida Statutes; false imprisonment, in violation of Section 787.02, Florida Statutes; burglary of a dwelling during which an assault was made, in violation of Section 810.02, Florida Statutes; conspiracy to commit a felony, to wit: trafficking in cocaine, in violation of Sections 777.04 and 893.135, Florida Statutes; trafficking in cocaine, in violation of Section 893.135, Florida Statutes; and possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statues. For these offenses, all of which were committed in August of 1982, Wong received five 1/ separate three-year sentences of imprisonment that ran concurrently with one another. As a prisoner, Wong's conduct was exemplary. Accordingly, in May, 1984, he was placed in a work release program. He completed serving his sentence in September, 1985. Since his return to the community, Wong has married and become a father. To help support his family, he works as a chef in a French restaurant, a position he has held for the past four and a half years. Wong is now a dedicated family man concerned about the welfare of his wife and their two and a half year old child. This concern has prompted him to seek a career in real estate so that he will be better able to provide for his family.
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 to practice as a real estate salesman, without prejudice to Petitioner filing a subsequent application when he is able to show that his rehabilitation is sufficiently complete to entitle him to such licensure. See Karl v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 229 So.2d 610, 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)(Commission may not preclude an applicant whose application has been denied because of a prior felony conviction from reapplying for licensure and showing subsequent rehabilitation). DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 10th day of April, 1989.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner meets the qualifications for licensure pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 2, 1987, in Pinellas County, Florida, the Petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea to a charge of exposure of sexual organs, a violation of Section 800.03, Florida Statutes. On or about August 17, 1987, the Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. In response to a question involving prior criminal violations, the Petitioner informed the Respondent of the past violation and his nolo contendere plea. On January 5, 1988, through its legal advisor, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that his application for a real estate license was denied because of the nolo contendere plea to the indecent exposure charge. The Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing. During the administrative hearing, the Petitioner testified that on the date of the alleged criminal violation, he stopped on his way to shopping mall to relieve himself in a public restroom located in Freedom Lake Park. While in the restroom, he was approached by a man who strongly implied he wanted to see the Petitioner's sexual organs. At first, the Petitioner did not respond to the request. He then told the man "no" and went to use the urinal. The other man identified himself as a police officer and placed the Petitioner under arrest for exposure of sexual organs. Once charged with the offense, the Petitioner had to decide whether to contest the charge by requesting a trial or to enter into a plea bargain agreement. The Petitioner was a high school guidance counselor at the time of the arrest. Because of his employment, he was concerned about the notoriety a trial involving sexual misconduct would bring and its damage to his career. He was also concerned about the effects of a trial upon him and his family. The terms of the plea agreement were that if he were to enter a nolo contendere plea, adjudication of guilt would be withheld by the court. He would be fined $150.00, required to seek counseling, and be placed on six months of supervised probation. Upon advice of counsel, the Petitioner chose to enter the plea, and accept the plea bargain agreement.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Hillard J. Meinstein, is the holder of real estate salesman license number 0174789 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission. The license was issued on September 1, 1981 and remains current as of this date. On or about March 16, 1982 the circuit court for Hillsborough County, Florida entered an order accepting a plea of nolo contendere from one Hillard J. Meinstein for the offense of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Meinstein was placed on probation for 15 years and required to pay a $10,000 fine to the Hillsborough Country Sheriff's Office within one year after date of sentence. A certified copy of the order has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 3. It was not disclosed whether the respondent and the defendant in the above case were the same individuals. On April 30, 1982 the supervisor for application certification of the then Board of Real Estate wrote the sheriff of Hillsborough County and requested him to search his records to determine if a Hillard Jeffrey Meinstein had been arrested by his agency for various charges including conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. The letter also indicated that Hillard Jeffrey Meinstein was an applicant for licensure as a real estate salesman. The response of the sheriff, if any, was not disclosed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 31st day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Lee Printy, Esquire P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire 602 East Central Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Carla B. Rosario, filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman with respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, on September 24, 1982. Rosario had previously passed the examination with a score of 80. Question 6 on the application asks if the applicant had ever "been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses. . .without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled." Petitioner responded with the following answer: "Yes, criminal fine of $150.00, a total of $165.00 including court costs. Cannot be exact about charge since I can't specifically (sic) remember it." After receiving the application, respondent forwarded petitioner's fingerprint cards to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and requested a copy of petitioner's arrest record. That record reflected petitioner was arrested by the Wethersfield, Connecticut Police Department on October 18, 1980, for (a) second degree burglary, (b) conspiracy to commit second degree burglary, and (c) third degree larceny. The first two charges were ultimately dismissed and petitioner pled guilty to conspiracy to commit third degree larceny and paid a $150 fine plus $15 in court costs on November 5, 1981. Prior to receiving the arrest report, respondent apparently requested petitioner to furnish additional information concerning her answer to question In a letter dated November 2, 1982, petitioner responded that "(she) was arrested October of 1980, in Wethersfield, Connecticut", that "the matter was taken care of in New Britian Courts," and that the only documentation she had concerning the matter was enclosed. That was a one page receipt from the Superior Court, State of Connecticut, reflecting she had paid a $150 fine plus $15 court costs for a "criminal fine" on November 5, 1981. On January 27, 1983 respondent denied petitioner's application on the basis of her incomplete answer to question 6 and because her arrest record was an indication that she was not "honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character" and that she did not have a "good reputation for fair dealing." The letter of denial prompted the instant proceeding. Petitioner did not deny that her initial answer had been incomplete or that she had been arrested on various charges in 1980. She blamed the arrest incident on the fact that she happened to be in the same car with her husband when he was arrested for similar charges. Petitioner is unemployed at the present time. However, if she is successful in obtaining a real estate license, she intends to work for her mother who is active in the real estate business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Carla B. Rosario for licensure as a real estate salesman be DENIED without prejudice to her submitting a new application at a later time. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 15th day of August, 1983.
