The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has forfeited his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System pursuant to Section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2008).
Findings Of Fact Based on the record in this proceeding, including the evidence presented at the formal hearing and the joint pre- hearing stipulation1 of the parties, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Florida Retirement System (FRS) is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement (Respondent or Division), is charged with managing, governing, and administering the FRS. Petitioner, Mr. Johnson Holsberry, Jr. (Petitioner or Mr. Holsberry), was formerly employed as a teacher at the West Area School of Choice by the Palm Beach County School Board (PBCSB). By reason of his employment with the PBCSB, Mr. Holsberry became a member of the FRS. As a teacher, Mr. Holsberry was subject to the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida found in Rule 6B- 1.001, Florida Administrative Code. As a teacher, Mr. Holsberry was subject to the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006. On or about December 5, 2000, Mr. Holsberry resigned his teaching position with PBCSB. On or about October 24, 2001, Mr. Holsberry was charged, by amended information, in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, with one count of child abuse, a third degree felony, in violation of Section 827.03(1), Florida Statutes. The same amended information is filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in State of Florida v. Johnson Leo Holsberry, Jr., Case No. Ol-CF-001185. The victim of the alleged crime, R.D., was a female student at the Area School of Choice. In Palm Beach County, Florida, between the dates of January 1, 1999, and December 31, 1999, Petitioner, while teaching in a position of parental responsibility, was alleged to have had contact with R.D. and to have acted in such a manner as to cause mental injury to said child. On or about October 24, 2001, Mr. Holsberry entered an agreement with the State Attorney's Office wherein he agreed to plead guilty as charged in the amended information. The same plea agreement is filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in State of Florida v. Johnson Leo Holsberry, Jr., Case No. Ol-CF- 001185. Mr. Holsberry's guilty plea was made freely and voluntarily. Mr. Holsberry pled guilty because he was in fact guilty. On or about October 24, 2001, Mr. Holsberry was adjudicated guilty. The same judgment is filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in State of Florida v. Johnson Leo Holsberry, Jr., Case No. Ol-CF-001185. On or about January 8, 2001, Mr. Holsberry applied to the Division for early service retirement from the FRS and began receiving retirement benefits. The Division suspended payment of Mr. Holsberry's monthly retirement benefits in June 2008. By certified letter dated June 13, 2008, Mr. Holsberry was notified of the Division's intended action to forfeit his FRS rights and benefits as a result of his guilty plea in the case styled and numbered State of Florida v. Johnson Leo Holsberry, Jr., Case No. Ol-CF-001185. At the hearing, Mr. Holsberry testified that R.D. was in his classroom a few times, but that he was not sure of the year, frequency, or why she was there. He testified that he does not remember taking a picture of R. D. sitting at his desk, but that might have taken place. Mr. Holsberry also testified that he does not recall permitting R. D. to access her email from his classroom, or inviting her to join him on trips, to come to his home, or otherwise to meet him any place outside of the school. Mr. Holsberry testified that he does not recall giving R. D. his home telephone number. He recalls having an email screen name of Sameagle1, but does not recall whether he emailed R. D. from that email address or whether he had another screen name, Gutster. He testified that he does not recall referring to himself as H-Man (although he said some students called him "Mr. H.") or referring to R.D. as "Dukey Dufus." In general, Mr. Holsberry's testimony that he does not recall his actions that ultimately ended his career as a teacher is not credible. Mr. Holsberry noted that R.D. was not officially assigned to any of his classes, so that he was not responsible for her education, nor was he involved with her in any after school program that would have made him responsible for her welfare. Mr. Holsberry testified that he probably would not have met R.D. but for his position as a teacher at her school. He also recalled having being interviewed by an investigator named Green. Angelette Green, an employee of the Palm Beach County School District for 15 years, was the investigator assigned to Mr. Holsberry's case. Detective Green testified that Mr. Holsberry admitted that he helped R. D. set up an email account, communicated with her by email, including having sent by internet a picture of her taken in his classroom. She also testified that she remembers emails inviting R. D. to go somewhere. She said Mr. Holsberry called R. D. "Dukey Dufus" after he sent her an email and she questioned who it was from. On July 30, 2002, an Administrative Complaint was filed by the Commissioner of Education seeking disciplinary sanctions against Mr. Holsberry's license based on allegations of professional misconduct. Mr. Holsberry did not contest the disciplinary matter, having already agreed to surrender permanently his teaching certificate as a part of his plea agreement. The Education Practices Commission entered a final order permanently revoking his teaching certificate. On October 24, 2001, a plea conference was held on the following charge: Amended Information For: CHILD ABUSE In the Name and by the Authority of the State of Florida: BARRY E. KRISCHER, State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney, charges that JOHNSON LEO HOLSBERRY JR. on or between January 01, 1999 and December 31, 1999, in the County of Palm Beach and State of Florida, did knowingly or willfully, intentionally inflict physical or mental injury upon R.D., a child, {or} did an intentional act or actively encourage another to do an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to R.D., a child, contrary to Florida Statute 827.03(1). (3 DEG FEL) At the plea conference, the following exchange occurred: [By Mr. Jaegers, Assistant State Attorney:] The defendant will be adjudicated guilty of the offense; he will be placed on five years probation. There will be no early termination contemplated. The defendant will be required to pay Court costs in the amount of $261.00, $50.00 to the Drug Trust Fund, $50.00 cost of prosecution. The defendant must undergo a psychological evaluation and successfully complete any recommended treatment. * * * The defendant is to surrender all and not seek at any time in the future any teaching certificates in any jurisdiction in the world. There will be no contact with children under 18 unless they're in the presence of an adult who is aware of these charges. And those are the terms of the negotiated settlement. The facts in this case, Judge, are that the defendant, Johnson Leo Holsberry, Jr., did in Palm Beach County, Florida, on, between the dates of January 1, 1999 and December 31st, 1999, while teaching in a position of parental responsibility, in that capacity had contact with a juvenile female by the name of, or by the initials of SRD, I think it's on the plea sheet. MR. WILINSKEY [Counsel for Mr. Holsberry] That's right. MR. JAEGERS: -- RD, and did act in a manner such as to cause mental injury to said child. The -- those are the facts that occurred in Palm Beach County. THE COURT: Sir, raise your right hand, please. JOHNSON LEO HOLSBERRY, JR. BEING FIRST DULY SWORN BY THE COURT, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: THE COURT: Your name? THE DEFENDANT: Johnson Leo Holsberry, Jr. THE COURT: How old are you? THE DEFENDANT: 62 * * * THE COURT: Do you understand what the things are you have to do? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty because you are guilty? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Do you agree with the facts the State Attorney gave me as the basis for your plea of guilty? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner was convicted of a specified offense pursuant to Section 112.3173, Florida Statutes, and directing the forfeiture of his FRS rights and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 24th day of July, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible to purchase her employee service as a CETA employee with a state agency as credible service in the Florida Retirement Service.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sherry Stearns, was employed by the State of Florida, Department of Labor and Commerce, in the Florida State Unemployment office from January 1976 until September 30, 1977. The records maintained by the Department of Retirement based upon payroll data submitted by the Department of Revenue reflect that Petitioner was not in a permanent position as reflected by the Code 0303 and the entry of "zz" in the last column showing she was not eligible for retirement benefits. The Petitioner offered no evidence in support of her claim to show that she was employed in a position which was covered or for which she could claim prior service credit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's claim be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherry Stearns 360 South Senaca Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Stanley N. Danek, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 William H. Linder, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact On February 26, 1987, Petitioner determined that Respondent met all criteria for certification as a law enforcement officer and issued to him Certificate Number 3-86-502-09. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer employed by the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department Detention Center (Jail). Respondent is a large, physically imposing man who is 6'2" tall and weighs well over 200 pounds. COUNT ONE On October 22, 1988, Reggie Nickens was arrested during a narcotics sting and was transported to the Jail, where he was booked as an arrestee. During the time Mr. Nickens was being transported to the Jail by Police Officer Richard Temple, Mr. Nickens was argumentative and unhappy with his predicament. However, Mr. Nickens was not physically belligerent, offered no physical resistance, and did not appear to be intoxicated. Mr. Nickens had no injury or medical treatment that required treatment when he was booked into the Jail. Mr. Nickens is less than 6 feet tall and weighs approximately 100 pounds less than the Respondent. On the night shift of October 22-23, 1988, Respondent was on duty as a detention officer in the Jail working under the supervision of Lt. Harry Marsh. At the time Respondent came on duty, Mr. Nickens was in a holding cell. After he came on duty, Respondent was asked to photograph Mr. Nickens. Respondent removed Mr. Nickens from the holding cell to photograph him with a Polaroid camera. Respondent did not follow proper jail procedure in removing Mr. Nickens from the holding cell in that he did not request proper backup and he did not have handcuffs on his person. Handcuffs are considered by the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department to be standard equipment, and Respondent was expected to have handcuffs on his person at all times when on duty. Mr. Nickens was not handcuffed when Respondent removed him from the holding cell, even though he had been verbally belligerent while in the holding cell. Two video cameras record the movement of individuals in the booking area of the Jail, including the activity described in the following paragraphs. When Respondent removed Mr. Nickens, from the holding cell, Mr. Nickens, who is white, began to verbally abuse the Respondent, who is black, with racial slurs. Mr. Nickens moved around the Respondent, with his hands at his side. Although Mr. Nickens was verbally abusive and yelled in Respondent's face, he did not exhibit any threatening action with his hands. Respondent grabbed Mr. Nickens in the area of his neck, lifted him off his feet, pinned him against the wall of the booking area, slammed him to the floor, and jumped on top of him. Respondent was the physical aggressor in this incident and was not acting in a defensive posture. Mr. Nickens committed no physical act which could reasonably have been interpreted by Respondent as putting Respondent in physical jeopardy. Mr. Nickens submitted to Respondent's superior strength and did not make an effort to strike or otherwise resist when Respondent grabbed him by the throat. There was testimony that a hypoglossal hold is a self-defense technique that is taught at the Broward County Police Academy. To use this technique, one grabs an aggressor in the neck area and applies pressure to certain pressure points on the neck and under the jaw. There was conflicting testimony as to whether such a technique would be a permitted technique for use at the Jail to restrain a prisoner. Clearly, Commander Borino and the other supervisors who are responsible for the Jail's operation do not approve of the hypoglossal technique. Respondent asserts that he utilized the hypoglossal technique and then took Mr. Nickens to the floor and placed him in the prone position because Mr. Nickens resisted. The contention that Respondent used an approved self-defense technique in dealing with Mr. Nickens is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent was not acting in self-defense in dealing with Mr. Nickens and that the force he used was excessive. After Mr. Nickens was taken to the floor, he was handcuffed with cuffs supplied by one of the other officers on duty at the Jail. Although he was provoked by Mr. Nickens verbal abuse, Respondent used excessive force in dealing with Mr. Nickens which escalated during the course of the incident. Commander Borino was of the opinion that no force was necessary. Had force been necessary, an arm restraint would have sufficed until the other officers on duty could have arrived to assist Respondent. Officer Gooden, who was in the booking area with an inmate, did not react properly to the situation. Officer Gooden allowed his inmate to roam freely in the booking area during the incident and did not attempt to intervene until after Respondent had taken Mr. Nickens to the floor. Officer Gooden should have immediately secured his inmate and stepped in to stop the incident as soon as he saw Respondent choking Mr. Nickens. It was not established that Officer Gooden's intervention would have prevented the incident. Prior to the incident involving Mr. Nickens, Respondent had been counseled by Lt. Marsh that the use of a choke hold on an inmate was unacceptable procedure. Respondent received no physical injury as a result of this incident. Mr. Nickens, however, was injured as a result of Respondent's actions. Lt. Marsh, the supervisor at the jail at the time at question and Barbara Rogers, the licensed practical nurse on duty at the Jail, responded to a call for backup. They found Mr. Nickens in a prone position with red marks on his neck. Blood was coming from his mouth, and he was coughing up phlegm with red blood in it. Because Nurse Rogers and Lt. Marsh were concerned that Mr. Nickens had suffered a serious injury, he was ordered transported from the Jail to Broward General Medical Center to receive medical treatment. There was no evidence that Mr. Nickens injuries were serious. COUNT II During the late evening hours of June 17, 1989, John Wroble, who was intoxicated, started a fight in a bar and sustained an injury to his eye that resulted in a black eye. After the fight, Mr. Wroble was arrested and transported to the Jail. Kevin Shults, an off-duty Fort Lauderdale Police Officer, arrested Mr. Wroble. Officer Shults observed the injury to Mr. Wroble's eye, but he did not observe an injury to his chin or any other injuries to Mr. Wroble. Officer Shults did not observe any blood on Mr. Wroble's shirt or chin at the time of the arrest. Mr. Wroble was intoxicated and submissive at the time of his arrest. Officer Albert Lustig, Jr., was the booking officer at the time Mr. Wroble was received into the Jail. Officer Lustig observed no injury to Mr. Wroble's chin and observed no blood on Mr. Wroble's shirt. Mr. Wroble was cooperative at booking. Respondent was on duty and serving as the officer in charge of the booking area at the times pertinent hereto. Lt. Glen Schrier, whose office was on the floor above the booking area, was the shift supervisor. Mr. Wroble was processed in to the Jail and placed in a holding cell with other inmates. However, no photographs or prints were taken of Mr. Wroble during the time of his incarceration. In that holding cell, Mr. Wroble became verbally belligerent and threatened to spit on the officers. Thereafter, Officer Nangle entered Mr. Wroble's cell, placed him face down on the floor, handcuffed his hands behind his back, shackled his legs, and handcuffed the restraints holding his hands to those holding his legs. This procedure was referred to as hog-tying an inmate. Mr. Wroble continued to be threatening and disruptive. Thereafter, Respondent ordered Mr. Wroble transferred to a single occupancy cell, which was on the floor above the booking area. Officer Nangle, with Officer McDonough as his backup, entered the holding cell and removed the handcuff that was holding his feet to his hands and removed the leg shackles. Respondent entered the holding cell and took over from Officers McDonough and Nangle. Mr. Wroble remained handcuffed with his hands behind his back. Respondent, who is a much larger man than Mr. Wroble, escorted Mr. Wroble from the holding cell to the elevator to the next floor. The distance between the holding cell and the elevator is approximately 40 steps. It normally takes 3 to 5 seconds to cover this distance. Respondent held Mr. Wroble's shoulder area with one hand and grabbed the back of Mr. Wroble's hair with the other hand so that Wroble's chin was pointed upward. Respondent directed Mr. Wroble into the elevator. When Mr. Wroble entered the elevator, Officers McDonough and Nangle heard a thud, which was caused by Mr. Wroble's body making contact with the rear of the elevator. Officers McDonough and Nangle followed Respondent and Mr. Wroble onto the elevator, but had no physical contact with Mr. Wroble, who remained under Respondent's control. Respondent forced Mr. Wroble against the rear of the elevator with his elbow. When Respondent and Mr. Wroble exited the elevator, Mr. Wroble was bleeding from a laceration to his chin, and blood had stained his shirt. There was a spot of blood outside the elevator after Respondent and Mr. Wroble had exited the elevator. Officers McDonough and Nangle had observed no injury to Mr. Wroble's chin prior to his being escorted onto the elevator by Respondent. Lt. Schrier saw Respondent and Mr. Wroble exit the elevator. Upon seeing the injury to Mr. Wroble's chin, Lt. Schrier called Nurse Barbara Rogers, who was on duty at the time of the incident. She examined Mr. Wroble and observed a gaping laceration under his chin with the fatty tissue exposed. The wound was bleeding profusely. Nurse Rogers wanted to send Mr. Wroble to the hospital to have the wound sutured, but he refused treatment. Nurse Rogers was of the opinion that the wound she observed was consistent with blunt trauma. Respondent used excessive force in dealing with Mr. Wroble. Although Respondent was justified in being concerned about Mr. Wroble's risk of spitting on the officers, gear, such as helmets or masks, was available to prevent such conduct. The manner in which Respondent escorted Mr. Wroble from the holding cell to the elevator, especially the grabbing of his hair, was not justified. The fact that Mr. Wroble was making verbal threats of physical action does not justify the manner in which Mr. Wroble was escorted by Respondent from the holding cell to the elevator. Because of his level of intoxication, Mr. Wroble had difficulty walking, but he posed little threat of physical harm to Respondent or the other officers. Less restraint, such as having an officer on either side of Mr. Wroble to prevent him from falling or attempting to resist, should have been employed. There was a dispute as to how Mr. Wroble received the laceration to his chin. Respondent contends that he does not know how the injury occurred, but that he did not cause it. Petitioner contends that the circumstantial evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Mr. Wroble received the injury as a result of being shoved onto the elevator by Respondent and coming in contact with the rear of the elevator. This dispute is resolved by finding that Mr. Wroble received the injury when his chin struck the rear of the elevator after he was shoved onto the elevator by Respondent. COUNT III On September 1, 1989, Respondent issued two drafts on his personal credit union account to King Motor Company as part of a down payment for the purchase of a truck. Draft #181 in the amount of $500.00 was tendered first. After financing was arranged, it was determined that Respondent would have to pay an additional sum of $200.00, making the total down payment $700.00. The balance of the down payment was paid on September 1, 1989, by Respondent's draft #182 in the amount of $200.00. Both drafts were drawn on an account for which Respondent was the sole signatory. Following the tender of the down payment, Respondent took possession of the truck. Respondent's draft #181 was dishonored because the account had insufficient funds to honor the draft. Respondent's draft #182 was honored. Respondent's account did not have sufficient funds to pay draft #181 until September 8, 1989. When he wrote the two drafts to King Motors, the balance in Respondent's account was $39.48. (A deposit in the amount of $490.00 on September 6, 1989, provided the funds necessary to honor draft #182.) Respondent explained that the salesman at King Motor Company had agreed to hold check #181 for ten days to give Respondent time to make a deposit into his account. The manager of King Motor Company testified that such an agreement would have been against company policy and that he was unaware of any agreement to hold the check. The salesman with whom Respondent dealt was not called as a witness at this proceeding, and there was no documentary evidence as to this collateral agreement. Consequently, it is concluded that Respondent has failed to prove his assertion that there was an oral contract that changed the term of his written agreement with King Motor Company. After making several unsuccessful efforts to contact Respondent, King Motor Company filed a complaint against Respondent with the City of Sunrise Police Department. Detective Ray Meinberg of the City of Sunrise Police Department contacted Respondent on or about December 26, 1989, and advised him that he was conducting an investigation of the complaint. Respondent advised Detective Meinberg that he would make restitution within two weeks. Detective Meinberg advised that he would proceed with the investigation. Restitution was not made before Det. Meinberg completed his investigation. Arrest documents were prepared and Respondent was arrested on felony charges. On January 3, 1990, (the receipt by King Motors was erroneously dated 1-3-89) Respondent made restitution to King Motor Company, and the criminal charges were subsequently dismissed. Respondent's employment with the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department was terminated because of the worthless bank check charge, and there was no evidence that Respondent has worked as a law enforcement officer since his termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enters a Final Order which adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and which revokes Certificate Number 3-86-502-09 issued to Respondent on February 26, 1987. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 22nd day of July, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7255 The following rulings are made as to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, and 76 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 20 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in the first and third sentences of paragraph 21 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the second and fourth sentences of paragraph 21 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 22, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 71, and 75 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 45, 47, 51, and 54 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan L. Somers, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement 7265 N.W. 25th Street Miami, Florida 33122 Larry Bowen 4076 Sierra Terrace Sunrise, Florida 33351 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards & Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue is whether, pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ Petitioner forfeited his Florida Retirement System (“FRS”) Investment Plan account by entering a nolo contendere plea to two counts of violating section 893.13(2)(a)1., Florida Statutes, a second-degree felony.
Findings Of Fact The Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding Mr. Combs began working for DOC on May 25, 2001, as a Correctional Officer Level 1 at the Union Correctional Institution (“Union Correctional”) in Raiford, Florida. Union Correctional is a maximum security facility housing approximately 2,000 inmates, and Mr. Combs assisted with their care and custody. In January of 2006, Mr. Combs earned a promotion to Correctional Officer, Sergeant. While his responsibilities were very similar to those of his previous position, Mr. Combs was now supervising other correctional officers. In October of 2011, Mr. Combs earned a promotion to Correctional Officer, Lieutenant, and was responsible for supervising 50 to 70 correctional officers at Union Correctional. In April of 2013, Mr. Combs earned a promotion to Correctional Officer, Captain, and transferred to Florida State Prison in Starke, Florida. A captain is the highest ranking correctional officer on a given shift, and Mr. Combs supervised approximately 50 correctional officers at a time, including sergeants and lieutenants. Like Union Correctional, Florida State Prison is a maximum security facility housing approximately 2,000 prisoners. A colonel manages Florida State Prison, and it has two separate units. One of those units is a work camp housing lower- custody inmates who may work outside the facility, and the main prison is the other unit. Each of the units is run by its own major. In February of 2015, Mr. Combs was promoted to Major and took charge of the work camp at Florida State Prison. At some point in 2014 and prior to his promotion to Major, Mr. Combs had begun taking Oxycodone recreationally. Mr. Combs typically purchased one Oxycodone pill three to four times a week, and Dylan Hilliard (a Correctional Officer 1 at Florida State Prison) was Mr. Combs’ primary source of Oxycodone. Mr. Hilliard usually worked at the main prison, but he occasionally worked at the work camp. Mr. Combs knew Mr. Hilliard because of their employment with DOC. Mr. Combs purchased Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard at the latter’s home in Lawtey, Florida. However, some transactions occurred in Mr. Combs’ state-issued housing on the grounds of Florida State Prison. Mr. Hilliard charged Mr. Combs $35 for an Oxycodone pill, and that was a discount from the $38 price Mr. Hilliard charged others. Mr. Combs allowed his subordinates (Sergeants Jesse Oleveros and Evan Williams) to leave Florida State Prison during their shifts in order to purchase illegal drugs from Mr. Hilliard. After returning from their transactions with Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams would give Mr. Combs an Oxycodone pill free of charge. Operation Checkered Flag was a joint task force led by the Bradford County Sheriff’s Office, and its purpose was to arrest individuals involved with the distribution and use of illegal drugs. The authorities arrested Mr. Hilliard after he engaged in an illegal drug transaction with an undercover agent from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. A subsequent search of Mr. Hilliard’s cell phone revealed text messages between Mr. Hilliard and several other DOC employees, including Mr. Combs. Mr. Hilliard referred to Mr. Combs as “Chicken-Hawk” or “Hawk” in those text messages, and the two of them used car part terminology as a code for different milligram sizes of Oxycodone. Operation Checkered Flag ultimately resulted in the arrest of 10 DOC employees. The authorities arrested Mr. Combs on July 1, 2015, based on allegations that he had committed six felonies relating to the alleged unlawful and illegal purchase and distribution of Oxycodone. DOC fired Mr. Combs on approximately July 1, 2015. Mr. Combs initially denied all of the allegations. However, after spending nearly 56 days in jail, Mr. Combs reached an agreement with the State Attorney’s Office in Bradford County that called for his criminal charges to be reduced in exchange for his cooperation with Operation Checkered Flag. During an interview on August 20, 2015, with members of Operation Checkered Flag, Mr. Combs admitted that he had purchased Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard. In addition, Mr. Combs admitted that on six or seven occasions he allowed Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams to leave the prison grounds so that they could purchase Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard. The State Attorney’s Office in Bradford County chose to dismiss most of the charges against Mr. Combs. The Information ultimately filed against Mr. Combs set forth two counts alleging that he violated section 893.13(2)(a)1., by illegally purchasing Oxycodone on March 23, 2015, and March 31, 2015. Those purchases occurred approximately 10 miles from Florida State Prison at Mr. Hilliard’s residence in Lawtey, Florida. Neither Mr. Combs nor Mr. Hilliard was on duty during those transactions. On August 25, 2015, Mr. Combs pled nolo contendere. The Bradford County Circuit Court entered judgment against Mr. Combs based on the two violations of section 893.13(2)(a)1., but withheld adjudication. All of the conduct underlying Mr. Combs’ nolo contendere plea occurred while he was employed by DOC. The SBA Determines that Mr. Combs Forfeited his FRS Benefits At all times relevant to the instant case, Mr. Combs was a member of the FRS. The FRS is the legislatively-created general retirement system established by chapter 121, Florida Statutes. See § 121.021(3), Fla. Stat. The SBA is the governmental entity that administers the FRS Investment Plan, a defined retirement benefits contribution plan. § 121.4501(1), Fla. Stat. Via a letter dated August 3, 2015, the SBA notified Mr. Combs that a hold had been placed on his FRS account due to the criminal charges. As a result, no distribution of employer contributions from Mr. Combs’ account would be permitted until the SBA had evaluated the final disposition of those criminal charges. Via a letter dated September 3, 2015, the SBA notified Mr. Combs that he had forfeited his FRS benefits as a result of his nolo contendere plea. In support thereof, the SBA cited section 112.3173, Florida Statutes, which provides for the forfeiture of a public employee’s FRS retirement benefits upon the entry of a nolo contendere plea to certain types of offenses. The SBA’s letter closed by notifying Mr. Combs of his right to challenge the SBA’s proposed action through an administrative hearing. Mr. Combs requested a formal administrative hearing and asserted that the crimes for which he was convicted did not fall within the scope of section 112.3173(2)(e). In other words, Mr. Combs argued that his convictions were not associated with his employment at DOC and thus did not amount to a violation of the public trust. Testimony Adduced at the Final Hearing Mr. Combs testified that he was responsible for the work camp and the supervision of the correctional officers assigned there. He also testified that he would occasionally supervise correctional officers who normally worked in the main prison. Mr. Combs testified that Mr. Hilliard was his primary source of Oxycodone and that Mr. Hilliard occasionally worked at the work camp. Mr. Combs was aware that two Florida State Prison employees who worked directly under him (Sergeant Jesse Oleveros and Sergeant Evan Williams) were purchasing Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs testified that he allowed Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams to leave Florida State Prison grounds six or seven times in order to purchase Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs testified that Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams would give him an Oxycodone pill after returning from their transactions with Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs acknowledged during his testimony that DOC policy prohibits correctional officers from leaving prison grounds during their shift. Mr. Combs acknowledged that it was a violation of DOC policy and Florida law to allow a correctional officer to leave prison grounds during a shift for the purpose of purchasing illegal narcotics. Mr. Combs also acknowledged that it was a violation of DOC policy and Florida law to allow a correctional officer to be on prison grounds with illegal narcotics. Finally, Mr. Combs acknowledged that as a sworn officer with the Department of Corrections, he had an obligation to report any criminal activity committed by a correctional officer working at Florida State Prison, regardless of whether that correctional officer reported to him. Findings of Ultimate Fact An examination of the circumstances associated with Mr. Combs’ Oxycodone purchases from Mr. Hilliard demonstrates that there is a nexus between Mr. Combs’ employment as a correctional officer with DOC and his commission of the crimes to which he pled nolo contendere. For instance, Mr. Combs came to know his primary source of Oxycodone (Mr. Hilliard) through their mutual employment with DOC. Indeed, Mr. Combs supervised Mr. Hilliard when the latter was assigned to the work camp at Florida State Prison. Also, Mr. Combs knew that these transactions were illegal. As noted above, he and Mr. Hilliard used a code based on car part references to disguise the actual subject of their communications. Contrary to DOC policy and Florida Law, Mr. Combs allowed two of his subordinates (Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams) to leave Florida State Prison during their duty shifts in order to purchase illegal drugs from Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs would then receive a free pill from Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams. Mr. Hilliard sold Oxycodone to Mr. Combs at a reduced price. It is reasonable to infer that Mr. Combs received this discount due to his high-ranking position at Mr. Hilliard’s place of employment and because Mr. Combs facilitated Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams’ purchases of Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs willfully violated DOC policy and Florida law by allowing correctional officers to leave prison grounds during a shift for the purpose of purchasing illegal narcotics. Mr. Combs knowingly violated his obligation as a sworn correctional officer by not reporting the criminal activity committed by Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs defrauded the public from receiving the faithful performance of his duties as a correctional officer. The public had a right to expect that one of its employees would not purchase drugs from someone he supervised. The public also had a right to expect that Mr. Combs would not use his authority at Florida State Prison to facilitate Mr. Hilliard’s illegal drug sales to other DOC employees. In addition, the public had a right to expect that Mr. Combs would not engage in illegal transactions on the grounds of Florida State Prison. Mr. Combs realized a profit, gain, or advantage through the power or duties associated with his position as a Major at DOC. Specifically, Mr. Combs satisfied his Oxycodone habit through purchases made from a DOC employee who he supervised. Also, Mr. Combs used his position to facilitate other sales by Mr. Hilliard, and Mr. Combs’ assistance led to him receiving free Oxycodone and a discounted price on his Oxycodone purchases. The findings set forth above in paragraphs 49 through 57 are the only ones needed to establish a nexus between Mr. Combs’ public employment and the two counts to which he pled nolo contendere. That nexus is evident from Mr. Combs’ testimony, Mr. Combs’ Responses to the SBA’s Requests for Admissions, and the Stipulated Facts. It was not necessary to consider the exhibits to which Mr. Combs raised objections, i.e., the arrest warrant, the warrant affidavit, and the audio recordings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration issue a final order finding that Petitioner was a public employee convicted of specified offenses that were committed prior to retirement, and that pursuant to section 112.3173 he has forfeited all of his rights and benefits in his Florida Retirement System Investment Plan account, except for the return of his accumulated contributions as of the date of his termination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 10th day of May, 2016.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has forfeited his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System (FRS), pursuant to sections 112.3173 and 121.091(5)(f), Florida Statutes, because of his conviction for official misconduct, a third degree felony under section 838.022(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The FRS is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. Respondent is charged with managing, governing, and administering the FRS. In January 1987, Petitioner began employment with the Florida Department of Transportation ("DOT"), an FRS-participating employer. By reason of this employment, Petitioner was enrolled in the FRS, and DOT made contributions to the FRS on his behalf. In March 2001 and March 2005, Petitioner was elected to separate four-year terms as a Commissioner on the City Commission of the City of Deerfield Beach, Florida ("City"), an FRS-participating employer. By reason of his public office as a City Commissioner, Petitioner was enrolled in the FRS, and the City made contributions to the FRS on his behalf. Before entering upon the duties of his public office, pursuant to Florida law and the City Charter, Petitioner was required to take and subscribe substantially to the following oath: I do solemnly swear or affirm that I am a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America and a registered voter and resident of the City of Deerfield Beach, as shown by the public records of Broward County, Florida. I am being employed as a Commissioner of the City of Deerfield Beach and will be a recipient of public funds. As such Commissioner I further swear or affirm that I will support the Charter of the City of Deerfield Beach, the Constitution of the State of Florida, and the Constitution of the United States, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of my office upon which I am about to enter. All elected officials of the City were subject to the standards of ethical conduct for public officers set by Florida law and the City Charter. Effective December 11, 2008, Petitioner resigned his position as City Commissioner. On or about December 29, 2008, Petitioner was charged, by information, with one count of grand theft, a third degree felony, in violation of sections 812.014(1)(a) and (b) and (2)(c)2., Florida Statutes; one count of official misconduct, a third degree felony, in violation of section 838.022(1), Florida Statutes; and one count of falsifying records, a first degree misdemeanor, in violation of section 839.13, Florida Statutes. The crimes with which Petitioner was charged were alleged to have occurred between October 6, 2007 and January 10, 2008. The basis for the official misconduct charge was that Petitioner falsified a campaign treasurer's report as part of his campaign for mayor of the City. The campaign treasurer's report is an official record or document belonging to the office of the City Clerk and/or the Florida Department of State, Division of Elections. Petitioner is no longer employed by DOT or the City. Petitioner is not retired from the FRS, and he has not received FRS retirement benefits. On or about May 7, 2010, Petitioner filed with the Division a completed FRS Pension Plan Application for Service Retirement (Form FR-11). By letter dated May 11, 2010, the Division advised Petitioner in relevant part as follows: This letter is to advise you of the status of your application for Florida Retirement System benefits. Our Legal office is reviewing your current legal situation for a determination of whether a forfeiture of benefits has occurred. If the determination is that forfeiture occurred, you will be notified and given information if you wish to appeal that determination. Your retirement application is pending until this review is complete. On May 10, 2011, a jury rendered a verdict which found Petitioner guilty as charged in the information. On July 29, 2011, the court adjudicated Petitioner guilty of the crimes. On or about August 3, 2011, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal in Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal. On May 1, 2013, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Petitioner's convictions for grand theft, official misconduct, and falsifying records, and authored an opinion which addressed Petitioner's contention that he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal on the count of official misconduct. The Court wrote in relevant part: Section 838.022(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), makes it "unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any person or to cause harm to another, to ... [f]alsify, or cause another person to falsify, any official record or official document." In this case, the basis for the official misconduct charge was that appellant falsified a campaign report as part of his campaign for mayor of Deerfield Beach. On appeal, appellant focuses on section 838.022(2)(a), which defines "public servant" as not "includ[ing] a candidate who does not otherwise qualify as a public servant," for the argument that "he was not a public servant at the time of the alleged offense" but was "merely a candidate for public office." However, as the State argues, at the time appellant was a candidate for mayor, he "otherwise qualif[ied] as a public servant" by virtue of his status as a city commissioner. Chapter 838 defines "public servant" as including "[a]ny officer or employee of a state, county, municipal, or special district agency or entity." § 838.014 (6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007). The statute distinguishes a mere candidate from a public job or office holder in order to reach the evil of public servants misusing their office. Here, appellant was not just a candidate at the time of the offense; it was his dual status as a candidate and an incumbent commissioner that brought him within the ambit of the statute. ... Gonot v. State, 112 So. 3d 679, 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)(emphasis in original). ULTIMATE FACTUAL FINDINGS Petitioner forfeited his rights and benefits under the FRS pursuant to sections 112.3173 and 121.091(5)(f), Florida Statutes, because he was convicted of official misconduct, a third degree felony, in violation of section 838.022(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order finding that the Petitioner was convicted of a felony under section 838.022(1), Florida Statutes, and directing the forfeiture of his FRS retirement rights and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 13th day of December, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible to participate in the Florida Retirement System (FRS), within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(17)(a), Florida Statutes (2009),1 as a substitute teacher for the Lee County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been an employee of the Lee County School Board (the School Board) from February 28, 2001, through the date of the final hearing. The School Board is a participating member in the FRS. Petitioner has never been a full-time employee of the School Board and has never been eligible for service credits for purposes of the FRS. From February 28, 2001, until some time in May 2004, the School Board employed Petitioner in a temporary, part-time position. From some time in May 2004 through the date of the final hearing, the School Board has employed Petitioner as a substitute teacher. From February 28, 2001, through some time in May 2004, the School Board required part-time employees such as Petitioner to participate in a plan identified in the record as the Bencor FICA Alternative Plan (the Bencor Plan). The Bencor Plan provided retirement benefits for temporary teachers, who were not eligible for FRS retirement benefits. On May 25, 2004, Petitioner submitted a Distribution Request Form to withdraw her accumulated savings from the Bencor Plan. Petitioner was eligible to withdraw her retirement benefits from the Bencor Plan, because she changed her employment status from a temporary teacher to a substitute teacher. Some time in May 2004, Petitioner began teaching as a substitute teacher for the School Board. Petitioner has continued as a substitute teacher for the School Board through the date of the final hearing. As a substitute teacher, Petitioner is not a full-time employee, who is eligible for service credits for purposes of the FRS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for FRS benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 11th day of August, 2010.
The Issue Whether on or about January 22, 1996, Respondent, Fidel DeLeon, did unlawfully attempt to commit a sexual battery upon Diane Smalley, a person twelve years of age or older, without the consent of Diane Smalley, by attempting to penetrate her vagina with his penis or by attempting to place his penis in union with the vagina and/or mouth of Diane Smalley, and in the process thereof used physical force and violence not likely to cause serious personal injury. Whether Respondent violated the provisions of Section 943.1395(6) and/or (7), Florida Statutes, and Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that the Respondent failed to maintain the qualifications established by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, which require that law enforcement officers in the State of Florida have good moral character.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer in Florida by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on December 7, 1990, and was issued certificate No. 113130. Respondent was employed with the Orange County Sheriff's Office on May 9, 1994. Respondent served as a road deputy during the relevant time-period, working the midnight shift. Dianne Smalley was born on January 7, 1953, and is a person twelve years of age or older. Smalley was employed by the Maitland Police Department as a dispatcher in January 1996, and worked the midnight shift. Smalley met and became acquainted with Respondent approximately a month prior to January 22, 1996. On January 21, 1996, Respondent and Smalley made plans to get together socially after Respondent got off duty. On January 22, 1996, at about two o'clock in the morning, Respondent went to the residence of Smalley and was invited in. When Respondent arrived at Smalley's residence, he was wearing his police uniform, which included a holstered gun. Respondent and Smalley socialized for about 30 minutes while in the residence. During the course of their conversation, Respondent told Smalley that he was married. After telling Smalley he was married, Respondent was asked to leave by Smalley. Respondent did not leave Smalley's residence at that point, but instead Respondent moved closer to Smalley who was sitting on the couch. Respondent pushed Smalley back on the couch, however, Respondent moved forward and kissed her on her neck. Respondent also rubbed his hands all over the body of Smalley. Smalley pushed away Respondent and told him that nothing was going to happen. She got up and walked toward the front door, expecting Respondent to leave. As Smalley moved from the dining room toward the front door, Respondent came up behind her and pushed Smalley back into the living room to where her body was bent forward over the arm of the couch. Respondent stood behind Smalley and, as she was bent over the couch, Respondent held her down by holding her arms and with the weight of his body. Respondent then tried to pull her pants down and pull up her shirt. Respondent unzipped his pants and pulled out his penis. Respondent rubbed his genitals against Smalley's posterior and placed his penis between her legs. Respondent simulated intercourse with Smalley. Respondent tried to put Smalley's hand on his penis but she resisted. Respondent asked Smalley to perform oral sex on him but she refused. Respondent tried to push Smalley's body down to perform oral sex on him, but was unable to because she locked her knees. Respondent then masturbated himself in Smalley's living room and ejaculated on the carpet in the living room. Respondent then let Smalley go and left the residence. During the course of the day, Smalley reported the incident to her roommate. Later that day, Respondent called Smalley on the telephone and apologized for what had happened. Smalley called the Orange County Sheriff's Office after viewing a news broadcast where a rape suspect, who looked similar to Respondent, had gained access to the victim's home by using a police ID. Smalley did not identify herself fully to Detective Volkerson, but identified Fidel DeLeon as a possible suspect because of what he had done to her. Through Respondent's telephone records, detectives were able to identify Smalley as the caller. An investigation was initiated and Smalley cooperated with law enforcement. During the investigation, Respondent gave investigators false and misleading statements. Following the internal investigation, Respondent was terminated from the Orange County Sheriff's Office on August 29, 1996. During the course of the investigation of this matter from January through August 1996, there was insufficient evidence of misconduct by law enforcement which would negate the integrity of the investigation into this matter. Smalley's testimony at the formal hearing was credible.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order which finds: Respondent guilty of committing attempted sexual battery on January 22, 1996; that Respondent failed to maintain the qualifications established by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, which require that law enforcement officers have good moral character; and revoke the certification of Respondent to be a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 22nd day of February, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Simmons, Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Fidel DeLeon 381 Lake Park Trail Oviedo, Florida 32765 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 A. Leon Lowry, II, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Petitioner forfeits his rights to benefits under the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact On May 5, 2011, Petitioner was mayor of North Miami Beach, Florida. During Petitioner’s employment as mayor with North Miami Beach, he was a member of the Florida Retirement System. On or about October 17, 2012, Petitioner was charged by Information with nine criminal counts in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. On February 24, 2016, pursuant to a written Plea Agreement, Rosner entered a plea of guilty to Count 11/ Unlawful Compensation [or] Reward for Official Behavior, in violation of section 838.016(2), in Eleventh Circuit case F12023663. That same day in the Eleventh Circuit case F12023663, Judge Martin Bidwill issued the following orders: an Order Ratifying Terms of Plea Agreement; a Disposition Order specifying Rosner’s plea to Count 1 Unlawful Compensation [or] Reward for Official Behavior; and a Finding of Guilt Order to Count 1 Compensation [or] Reward for Official Behav[ior]/Influence. The October 17, 2012, Information detailed the factual basis of Rosner’s plea and conviction in Count 1.2/ Petitioner illegally received unpaid campaign advertising from Martin Outdoor Media, which had a continuing contract with the City of North Miami Beach while Petitioner served as mayor. Count 1 provides in relevant part, the following: COUNT 1 MYRON JOEL ROSNER, on or about May 5, 2011, in the County and State aforesaid, being a public servant to wit: MAYOR OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH did unlawfully, feloniously, and corruptly request, solicit, accept, or agree to accept any pecuniary or other benefit not authorized by law, to wit; UNPAID CAMPAIGN ADS, for the past, future, or future exertion of any influence upon or with any other public servant regarding any act or omission which said public servant represented as being within the official discretion of a public servant, to wit: CONTINUE ALL MARTIN OUTDOOR MEDIA CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, in violation of s. 838.016(2), Fla. Stat., contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.3/ Rosner was notified by certified letter dated April 20, 2016, of the Division's proposed action to forfeit his Florida Retirement System rights and benefits pursuant to sections 112.3173 and 121.091(5)(f). The notice provided the following basis for the proposed action: . . . . as a result of your guilty plea in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, for acts committed in connection with your employment with the City of North Miami Beach. Specifically, on or about October 18, 2012, in Case Number F12-023663 (2012-CF_023663), you were charged by information, in relevant part, with unlawful compensation or award for official behavior, a second degree felony in violation of section 838.016(2), Florida Statutes, based on conduct which occurred on or about May 5, 2011. On or about February 24, 2016, you entered a guilty plea for one count of unlawful compensation or award for official behavior, a second degree felony in violation of section 838.016(2), Florida Statutes, and adjudication of guilt was withheld. By Petition dated May 9, 2016, Rosner contested the Notice and challenged the forfeiture.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement enter a final order finding that Petitioner was a public employee convicted of a specified offense committed prior to retirement pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes, and directing the forfeiture of his Florida Retirement System rights and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 15th day of June, 2017.
The Issue Should Petitioner's benefits under the Florida Retirement System be forfeited based on Petitioner having pleaded guilty to a felony, conspiracy to interfere with commerce by committing extortion, for which he was subsequently adjudged guilty in federal court?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Division is charged with the responsibility of administering the Florida Retirement System. At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner, James Sanders, was employed by the Collier County, Florida Sheriff's Office as a Law Enforcement Officer. On April 26, 2000, the Grand Jury for the United States Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division handed down an Indictment wherein Petitioner was charged with, among other things, conspiracy to interfere with commerce by committing extortion, a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 1951 and 2. On April 30, 2001, Petitioner, in accordance with the Plea Agreement dated January 19, 2001, pleaded guilty to Count One of the Indictment, conspiracy to interfere with commerce by committing extortion in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 1951 and 2, a felony, as that term is defined in Section 775.08(1), Florida Statutes. On May 2, 2001, Judge John E. Steele, United States District Judge, Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division entered a Judgment in a Criminal Case wherein Petitioner was adjudged guilty (convicted) of Count One of the Indictment, conspiracy to interfere with commerce by committing extortion, a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 1951 and 2. By entering his plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment, conspiracy to interfere with commerce by committing extortion, a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 1951 and 2, Petitioner expressly admitted his guilt to that charge under the terms of the Plea Agreement. By entering his plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment, conspiracy to interfere with commerce by committing extortion, a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 1951 and 2, Petitioner admitted to entering the conspiracy for monetary gain, and that he obtained money in furtherance of the conspiracy. After his conviction, Petitioner applied for, and began receiving, retirement benefits under the Florida Retirement System. Upon learning that Petitioner had been convicted of the charge of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by committing extortion by the United States District Court, Middle District, Fort Myers Division, the Division investigated and subsequently advised Petitioner that his retirement benefits under the Florida Retirement System were being forfeited. Neither the Division nor Petitioner presented any evidence of: (a) Petitioner's accumulated contributions to the Florida Retirement System as of the date of his termination; or the amount of retirement benefits that Petitioner had received prior to the Division advising him of the forfeiture.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner has forfeited all rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System upon his April 30, 2001, federal felony conviction and requiring the refund by Petitioner of any benefits paid to him in excess of Petitioner's accumulated contributions. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 11th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James Sanders c/o FCI Edgefield 501 Gary Hill Road Post Office Box 723 Edgefield, South Carolina 29824 Peggy Sanders Post Office Box 5103 Immokalee, Florida 34143 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Monesia Taylor Brown, Acting General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Erin Sjostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
