Recommendation As stated above, the only issue remaining is mitigation. The only evidence of record is the late filed letters of character recommendation which were filed late by agreement of the parties. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law and considering the matters in litigation, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Board suspend the license of Lonnie Collins for twenty-four months and suspend enforcement of the last eighteen months of that twenty-four months suspension on the following conditions: Collins satisfactorily participate in the drug rehabilitation program for the duration of the Board's probation. Collins be restricted from having any responsibility for controlled drugs. Collins be subject to any physical examinations or tests the Board might at any time order. Collins be required to have his employer notify the Board of his employment, his disclosure to the employer of his probations, of the limitation imposed by the employer on Collins' responsibility for narcotics. Violation by Collins of a condition of his probation may in the Board's discretion result in the immediate imposition of the remaining portion of the suspension or further prosecution under 464 to revoke his license. Should Collins' license be revoked, the Florida State Board of Nursing would not consider his application for reinstatement of his license or reexamination for licensure until the remaining portion of his suspension has run. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1007 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robert W. Pope, Esquire 611 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 =================================================================
The Issue By letter dated July 18, 1977 the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco disapproved Petitioner's application for transfer of beverage license for the stated reason that corporate officer Anthony DuVal was not believed to be of good moral character. By letter dated July 25, 1977 DuVal contested the denial of the license transfer and requested a hearing. Two witnesses including DuVal testified in behalf of Petitioner, two witnesses were called by Respondent, and 4 exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact Red Wing Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, acquired ownership of the Red Road Lounge and the beverage license appurtenant thereto. Anthony DuVal and his wife own fifty percent of the stock of Red Wing Enterprises although Exhibit 3 shows DuVal to own one hundred percent of the applicant. Exhibit 3 shows DuVal was born in 1933; he testified that he is now 46. He changed his name to DuVal from Anthony Anello. On his original application, Exhibit 3, under his arrest record DuVal showed arrests in 1961 for FHA fraud and worthless check for which he was placed on probation and in 1965 a conviction for buying receiving, and concealing stolen property for which he was sentenced to one year in the county jail. During the investigation of his application DuVal was questioned at the Miami Division of Beverage office in April, 1977 regarding various arrests. He then denied having been arrested in New Jersey under the name of Anello and had no recall of various other arrests prior to 1960. Exhibit 4, Personnel Questionnaire, was prepared by DuVal with assistance of counsel on December 9, 1977 at the time of his previously scheduled hearing which was then continued until December 15. Exhibit 4 shows 6 worthless check offenses between March and August, 1960 for which he pleaded guilty and was placed on two year's probation; worthless check conviction in 1961 for which he was given probation; PEA fraud conviction 1961, for which he was given probation; a grand larceny charge dismissed for want of prosecution 10-7-63; aggravated assault, 1966 for which he was found not guilty; possession of firearms by a convicted felon, 1966 which was dismissed for want of prosecution; buying, receiving or concealing stolen property, 1965 and 1967 for which he was found not guilty; worthless check, 1967 for which he was found not guilty; buying and receiving or concealing stolen property, 1965, found guilty and sentenced to one year in county jail; and buying and receiving stolen property, 1969 for which he was found not guilty. In his testimony DuVal admitted arrests and convictions in New Jersey under the name of Anello plus numerous arrests from the operation of his store "Tony's Trading Post" in Miami as well as citations for not keeping his property clean of trash. His explanation of Exhibit 3 not including numerous arrests was that he thought only convictions need to be reported. His explanation for not listing the arrests prior to 1960 was that he thought he only needed to go back fifteen years in disclosing his record. DuVal described his trading post as a borderline operation by which he obviously implied that he often bought stolen property but could only take the seller's affidavit that the property was rightfully his to tell. For complaints stemming from this operation he was arrested perhaps 20 times but was not convicted. Numerous other times he was arrested for municipal code violations when trash was dumped on his property. In 1972 DuVal had his civil rights restored that had been -lost by reason of his convictions of the worthless check offenses and FHA fraud in 1961, and for the 1965 conviction of buying, receiving and concealing stolen property. The one witness who testified regarding DuVal's character had worked for DuVal as bookkeeper and bartender when he first took over the Red Road Lounge. Although she testified DuVal's reputation was good and people spoke highly of him, her observations were limited generally to the patrons of the bar. She had never spoken to the police, to patrons of Tony's Trading Post, or to any of the local politicians she knew, about DuVal's reputation. DuVal's explanation for failure to bring in various witnesses whose names he dropped as good friends, was that he didn't want them to know about his criminal record. DuVal owns motels, apartments, the Trading Post, and several lots in Miami in addition to the interest he acquired in the Red Road Lounge.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's request for exemption pursuant to Section 400.512, Florida Statutes, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On May 21, 1990, Petitioner, Orlando Rueda (Rueda), was arrested on charges of sexual battery on a child. The charges arose from incidents which occurred in 1983. On September 5, 1991, Rueda plead nolo contendere to five counts of attempted sexual battery on a child, Sections 777.04(1) and 794.011(2), Florida Statutes, and to two counts of indecent assault, Section 800.041(1), Florida Statutes. Adjudication was withheld, and Rueda was sentenced to five years probation, the terms of which included no contact with the victim or his family, no employment involving children, and a psychological evaluation. Rueda maintains that he is not guilty of the crimes for which he pled nolo contendere but states that because of financial difficulties in continuing with his defense and of the possibility that he could be sentenced to life imprisonment if he were found guilty, he pled nolo contendere rather than go to trial. On August 27, 1993, Rueda was arrested for driving with a suspended license. On September 17, 1993, his probation officer executed an affidavit of violation of probation indicating that Rueda violated probation by driving with a suspended license and failing to file with his probation officer a full report of having been arrested for driving with a suspended license. Rueda was arrested and charged with violation of probation. On October 18, 1993, Rueda admitted to the charge of violation of probation. The court revoked Rueda's probation and sentenced him to another five-year term of probation and ordered Rueda to attend a sex offender program at R.E.A.C.H. once a week. The court modified the probation by order dated May 31, 1994, to require attendance at the Fifth Street Counseling Center in place of attendance at R.E.A.C.H. Rueda was to remain in the Fifth Street Counseling Center program until further notice from the program. The program at the Fifth Street Counseling Center was headed by William Rambo, a clinical social worker. Rueda began his treatment with Mr. Rambo in June 1994. The treatment program is for a minimum of four years. The first phase, which usually lasts a year, consists of intensive weekly therapy sessions in which the patient deals with the allegations of the original sexual offense. The second phase is designed to last a minimum of one year and is a less intensive phase with bi-weekly group sessions. The emphasis in the second phase is on current functioning and monitoring of the patient's stability. The final phase is designed for two years and allows the patient to demonstrate continued stability. On January 31, 1996, Rueda admitted to his probation officer that he had used cocaine on January 24, 1996. Rueda also admitted to the use of cocaine to a Secret Service Agent, who was questioning Rueda about an incident involving a counterfeit fifty-dollar bill. Rueda said that he had been drinking with friends when one of them went to purchase cocaine. The drug was put into a cigarette, which Rueda and his friends smoked. As a result of the incident involving his use of cocaine, on February 26, 1997, the court ordered two years of community control, followed by ten years of probation which began on April 4, 1996. Community control is a form of house arrest and sometimes involves wearing an electronic monitoring device. Rueda was required to wear an electronic monitor for one year. Barring any further violations of probation, Rueda's probation is due to expire in 2008. On May 12, 1997, Rueda wrote a letter to the Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), requesting an exemption and outlining his criminal background. His letter did not include any information concerning the January 1996, cocaine- related violation. On December 8, 1997, the Agency granted Rueda an informal hearing before an informal hearing committee on his request for an exemption. During the informal hearing, the committee specifically asked Rueda to describe any special conditions of his probation. Petitioner did not volunteer that at the time of the informal hearing that he was being required to wear an electronic monitor. The informal committee had learned about the electronic monitor from Rueda's probation officer. Rueda did not reveal that he was wearing a monitor until the committee specifically asked whether he was under electronic monitoring. Rueda is still in the first phase of his treatment with Mr. Rambo. Part of the reason that he has not completed the first phase is that each time he violated probation, the probation period would begin anew, and Rueda would have to begin the first phase anew. However, based on the testimony of Mr. Rambo, Rueda has made progress in his treatment, but he has not completed his treatment program. Other than the incidents for which Rueda plead nolo contendere, Rueda has not been involved in any incidents of sexual battery or indecent assault.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Orlando Rueda's request for an exemption. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 23rd day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jennifer A. Steward, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 1400 West Commercial Boulevard, Suite 110 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Kevin J. Kulik, Esquire 600 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, Roger Smith, is an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, the Florida Parole Commission, including the Challenged Rule. The Petitioner is serving a "parole eligible sentence." The Petitioner's eligibility for parole has been determined by the Respondent. The Petitioner was convicted of the offense of escape and, therefore, the Respondent applied the Challenged Rule to the Petitioner. The Respondent. Sections 947.07 and 947.13, Florida Statutes, authorize the Respondent to adopt rules governing the parole of inmates in the State of Florida. Among other things, Section 947.13, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Respondent to determine who is placed on parole and to fix the time and conditions of parole. Pursuant to Sections 947.07 and 947.13, Florida Statutes, the Respondent promulgated the Challenged Rules. Rule 23-21.018(1) and (7), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 23-21.018(1) and (7), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: Vacation of presumptive or effective parole release date: The exiting of an inmate from the incarceration portion of his sentence, which shall include but not be limited to bond, escape, parole or MCR release, expiration of sentence, or transfer to a mental health facility, shall vacate any established presumptive parole release date. Any subsequent return to incarcerations will require an initial interview to establish a presumptive parole release date. Provided, however, inmates returning to court for modification of a previously imposed sentence or as witnesses shall not have their presumptive parole release dates vacated. Inmates returning to courts outside of Florida's jurisdiction, i.e, Federal or other state, shall not have their presumptive parole release dates vacated. However, information resulting from disposition of cases in court may be used as new information in accordance with applicable law and these rules. Inmates transferred to a Mentally Disordered Sexual Offender Program shall not have their presumptive parole release dates vacated. . . . . Conviction for crimes committed while incarcerated: Escape or any other crime committed during incarceration with an ensuing conviction and sentence vacates any previously established presumptive parole release date and shall cause the inmate to be considered a new admission. If the inmate is found to be eligible for consideration for parole, the Commission shall aggregate.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to receive an exemption from disqualification to work in positions of special trust.
Findings Of Fact In November 1999, Petitioner was employed by Angels Unaware, Inc., as a caretaker of children or the developmentally disabled. Such a position is a position of trust. By letter dated November 29, 1999, Angels Unaware, Inc., notified Petitioner that it had received information that was disqualifying and, thus, he was ineligible for continued employment as a caretaker of children, disabled adults, or elderly persons. However, in the letter, Petitioner was advised of his right to seek an exemption from disqualification from the licensing agency. Thereafter, Petitioner requested an exemption from disqualification. At all times, pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the state agency responsible for receiving and approving or denying applications for exemptions from disqualification to work in a position of trust. After receiving Petitioner's request for exemption, Respondent conducted the required background screening of Petitioner. The background screening revealed that Petitioner had been arrested and convicted of possession and delivery of cocaine. As a result of Petitioner's conviction, Respondent denied Petitioner's request for exemption. According to the background screening report, Petitioner was convicted of possession and delivery of cocaine on April 2, 1996. The incident that resulted in the conviction occurred on or about January 20, 1995, the day Petitioner was arrested. Following his arrest, Petitioner was charged with possession and delivery of cocaine. On May 1, 1995, Petitioner pled guilty to the aforementioned felony. That same day, the court withheld adjudication and placed Petitioner on probation for one year. Pursuant to condition 7 of Petitioner's probation, he was not to use or possess any drugs or narcotics unless prescribed by a physician. Notwithstanding this proscription, on or about September 24, 1995, November 14, 1995, and March 3, 1996, Petitioner violated this condition by using cocaine as evidenced by positive urinalysis and his own admission. As a result of Petitioner's repeated use of cocaine, on April 2, 1996, Petitioner was convicted of violating his probation and was adjudged guilty of possession and delivery of cocaine, the charges for which adjudication had been initially withheld on May 1, 1995. Moreover, Petitioner's one-year probation was revoked and he was placed on drug offender probation for two years. One of the special conditions of the drug offender probation was that Petitioner receive drug treatment until he successfully completed such program. On or about May 15, 1997, Petitioner again used and possessed cocaine in violation of the Order of Drug Offender Probation. Following this violation, on July 17, 1997, the court entered an Order of Modification of Probation. Pursuant to that Order, Petitioner's probation continued under the previous terms and conditions but Petitioner's cost for supervision was waived while he was receiving in-patient drug treatment. Petitioner entered a six-month in-patient drug treatment program in June 1997 and successfully completed the program on December 22, 1997. The court terminated Petitioner's probation on April 1, 1998. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that his using cocaine was a "mistake" and stated that he has been drug-free since June 1997, when he began the six-month drug treatment program. However, Petitioner presented no other witnesses or evidence of his rehabilitation during the two years since his probation was terminated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for an exemption from his disqualification from employment in positions of trust or responsibility. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (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 18th day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4000 West Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 Nwezi A. Nonyelu 6545 Spanish Moss Circle Tampa, Florida 33625 Virginia Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent, a corrections officer, has failed to maintain the qualification to have good moral character, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on February 19, 1993, as a Corrections Officer, Certification Number 136191. Respondent’s certification is active. At all times relevant, the Respondent was employed as a corrections officer with the Central Florida Reception Center. On November 5, 1994, Karen Mills was employed as a law enforcement officer with the Seminole County Sheriff’s office. At the time of the event, Officer Mills had been working under cover for five years with the City/County Investigative Bureau. Officer Mills was working undercover at one o’clock on a Saturday morning posing as a prostitute on the sidewalk and parking lot located at State Road 427 and Pomosa in Sanford, Florida. On November 5, 1994, Mills approached a black male driving a Toyota car, later identified as the Respondent, Travis Long, when he stopped for a traffic light at the corner of State Road 427 and Pomosa. After idle conversation, the Respondent asked what she was doing. She advised that she was trying to make some money. He asked her if she would “take it up the ass?” She took that to mean that he wanted anal intercourse. Mills said yes and asked him how much money he was willing to pay. Respondent said $25.00. Mills said she wanted $40.00. Respondent agreed but stated that he would have to go get the money from an ATM and also that he wanted to get something to eat. He asked Mills if she wanted to go with him to get something to eat. Mills declined. Mills did not immediately arrest Respondent because she wanted to see the money to confirm that he was there to buy sex. Respondent left the area and returned 20 minutes later. Upon his return, Respondent asked Mills if she was a cop and asked her to pull up her shirt to prove that she was not carrying a recording device (a wire). Mills asked Respondent if he was a cop. He said no, and ultimately exposed his penis as a way to prove it to her. Mills asked Respondent to show her the money and kept encouraging him to do so, by saying, “You ain’t gonna pay me . . . You ain’t got no money. I just want to be sure I’m gonna get paid.” Respondent finally showed Mills the money and mouthed, without speaking, “I will pay you.” As soon as she saw the money, Mills, who was wearing a wire, gave the predetermined code. Respondent began to pull away in his vehicle but other officers pulled him over and arrested him. Respondent plead Nolo Contendere to the charge of Lewd and Lascivious Behavior, a second degree misdemeanor, in the County Court for Seminole County, Florida, on January 5, 1995. Respondent was adjudicated guilty, and a $100 fine was imposed. Respondent’s testimony that, although he conducted himself as above stated, he did not have the intent to solicit for prostitution on the night of November 5, 1994, is not credible. Respondent was an energetic, hard-working individual. Respondent had no prior criminal or employment discipline problems prior to this incident. Respondent has continued in his current position as a corrections officer in the three years since the incident and has received above-average ratings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1993). Respondent's certification be SUSPENDED for a period of six months and that the Commission impose such conditions on his reinstatement as it deems reasonable and necessary. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Amy Bardill, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 H. R. Bishop, Jr., Esquire 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Department of Law Enforcement Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue for determination in these proceedings is whether the Petitioner, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer, should discipline the Respondent, Warren Scott Jackman, under Section 633.351(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1990), on an Administrative Complaint charging that he has pled nolo contendere to a felony charge.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent has been certified as a firefighter, certificate #44701. On or about March 7, 1990, a two-count criminal information was filed against the Respondent in Case No. CF-90-0604 charging the Respondent with two counts of committing a lewd act in the presence of a child. The information alleged that, on two occasions, the Respondent did handle, fondle or make an assault in a lewd, lascivious or indecent manner or knowingly commit a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a sixteen year old girl in that he did allow, permit or engage her to fondle, touch or rub his penis, but without committing sexual battery. On or about August 24, 1990, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges. Adjudication was withheld, but the Respondent was sentenced to one year of community control, followed by four years probation for each count, to be served concurrently.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Insurance, enter a final order revoking the certification of the Respondent, Warren Scott Jackman, as a firefighter. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 11th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact (the Respondent not having filed any): Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted and incorporated. 2.-3. Rejected, as stated, as contrary to facts found and the greater weight of the evidence. (The Respondent, not the Petitioner, was charged and entered the plea.) 4. Accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa S. Santucci, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services Room 412, Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Warren Scott Jackman 1569 Churchill Court Lakeland, Florida 33801 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer, Insurance Commissioner and Fire Marshall The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Clara Carr, was an inmate at the Florida Correctional Institution. The Respondent Commission is responsible for establishing Presumptive Parole Release Dates (PPRD's) for all inmates in the custody of the State of Florida who meet the requirements of Section 947.173, Florida Statutes. Petitioner met all of the requirements of that section and was entitled to a PPRD initial interview on November 25, 1985. In the establishment of a PPRD, the inmate is first interviewed in the field by an examiner who evaluates and scores the inmates on a form which is then sent to the full Commission which also scores the individual based on salient factors which may be aggravated or mitigated because of other permissible factors. If the Commission decides to assess an aggravating factor, the amount of time is discretionary within certain time limits. Initially, the Commission looks at the offense and its severity in setting a salient factor score and uses that as a beginning. Then the jail time prior to the admission to the Department of Corrections facility, if any, is removed and the pre and post sentencing reports, the interview, and other reports of public hearings and the like are evaluated as aggravating or mitigating factors. The aggravating factors are generally set out in the rule in question here but the list in question in the rule is not all inclusive. The Commission may consider anything which can be founded on a valid or reasonable connection to the action taken. Petitioner was interviewed by Commission staffers on November 25, 1985, for the purpose of setting her PPRD. By action of the Commission at a meeting held on January 8, 1986, the PPRD was established to be December 28, 1988. This date was arrived at by initially utilizing the maximum matrix of 32 months set for her offense and the conditions thereof aggravated by a history of alcohol abuse listed in the pre-sentence investigation; the psychological interview; and the admissions summary, for which the Commission added an additional 36 months. When that time was applied to the commencement of sentence, April 28, 1983, the PPRD was established as stated above. On January 30, 1986, through counsel, Petitioner requested a review of her PPRD alleging that the rule under which the Commission had aggravated her PPRD (Rule 23-21.10(4)(a)2b) is invalid. Petitioner claimed that alcoholism is a treatable illness and it is improper and illegal to aggravate on such grounds. Petitioner cited Article 1 Section 2 of the Florida Constitution; Section 396.022(1), Florida Statutes; 42 USC 4541(a)(8), and other authorities. A commission meeting was held on February 26, 1986, to consider Petitioner's request for review of her PPRD. The Commission did not change it holding that the rule in question was appropriate and provided for the aggravation of a PPRD for history of alcohol abuse. Consequently, the PPRD remained at December 28, 1988. In the pre-sentence investigation conducted by officials of Marion County, Florida, in August, 1983, which was presented to the Judge at the time Petitioner was sentenced and which was considered by the Commission at the time the PPRD was established, Petitioner is alleged to have indicated that she had been drinking very heavily for several hours the night of the incident and does not remember any of the circumstances surrounding it. She described herself as a "weekend drinker" of beer and liquor and denies the use of any drugs, but it is significant to note that her nickname in the community is "Boozie." Though Petitioner denied having a prior arrest record, the records of the Marion County Sheriff's Office and the Ocala Police Department indicate a series of arrests going back to January, 1975, five of six of which relate to aggravated battery or assault and battery, in some cases with a deadly weapon. During the admissions examination conducted at the time Petitioner entered FCI, she indicated that she did not drink, but also that she is a weekend alcoholic. The evaluator was of the opinion that her alcoholic involvement was more than just weekends involvement and in addition, she was diagnosed by the institutional psychiatrist as having an adjustment disorder. She was described as being very aggressive and one who would probably display aggressive behavior if placed under too much stress. The Commission is required, under the provisions of Sections 947.16 and 947.172, Florida Statutes, to provide the Petitioner with a PPRD and to compute that date according to objective parole guidelines outlined in Section 947.165, Florida Statutes. In determining the PPRD, the Commission may use aggravating or mitigating circumstances but these circumstances must not be duplicative of the severity of the offense behavior or the salient factor score arrived at pursuant to Sections 947.1651 and 947.1722, Florida Statutes. The Commission was delegated rulemaking power by Section 947.07, Florida Statutes. Consistent with the authority, the Commission developed parole guidelines outlined in Rule 23-21.10, Florida Administrative Code. The aggravation factor which is the subject of the instant challenge is contained in Rule 23-21.10(4)(a)2b, Florida Administrative Code. This Petitioner is a 28-year old female serving her first felony conviction from Marion County, Florida, for aggravated battery with a dangerous weapon having been sentenced to a term of 10 years (less 81 days jail time), on July 18, 1983. She was received at FCI on July 22, 1983, and presently has a maximum release date of April 25, 1993. Under the provisions of the rule cited above, the Commission may aggravate a Parole Release Date if the inmate has demonstrated a history of alcohol or drug abuse. The Petitioner's PPRD was aggravated for that reason because the history of her alcohol abuse relates to negative behavior on her part. This history of alcohol abuse alone would not be sufficient to cause the Commission to aggravate a PPRD. Here, however, there was a showing of increased risk on the part of Petitioner as a potential parolee. The Commission felt that she was a risk due to the interrelation of her history of bad behavior and alcohol consumption. Even though the rule in question does not specifically refer to aberrant behavior as related to the alcohol abuse as grounds for aggravation, it is nonetheless implied therein and a logical and reasonable extension and interpretation of the rule. The Commission does not specifically consider that the alcohol abuse may stem from a medical condition. It deals with results or behaviors regardless of the cause of the behavior. It is not the function of the Commission to deal with the cause of the problem, but to evaluate each inmate for parole on the basis of that inmate's specific situation. There is no formula for evaluation but instead, it is the best collective judgment of the risk factors in the individual case as arrived at by the members of the Commission. The matrix time ranges are limits of foundation times and the other factors are add-ons or subtractables. If this were not so; if there were to be no independence of thought and judgment by members of the Commission; there would be no need for people to make up the Commission and to make the decision. This function could be performed by a machine on the basis of factors fed into it. Petitioner contests the validity of the rule on the basis that it does not consider the fact that alcoholism is a sickness rather than a mental condition. At the time the rule complained of was drafted, the Commission hired Florida Research Center, Inc. as consultants to help come up with appropriate matrices and salient factors which included alcohol and drug abuse. In addition to this, a survey was conducted in 1978 of 10 individuals including the Commissioners as to how certain factors should be rated. Five of the ten parties questioned rated drug and alcohol abuse as number one. Two others rated those conditions as second in importance. Further, the Commission was provided with the professional literature considered by authorities at the time the preponderance of which supported these evaluations. It is clear that the legislative intent behind Chapter 947, Florida Statutes, was to have rules in effect for the Commission to use in establishing PPRD which call for the use of objective parole criteria within certain limits. Under the statute, the rule need not specify a number of months or a range of months for aggravation due to alcohol abuse. The Commission has not suggested to Petitioner that she seek treatment for her alcohol abuse nor has it offered to reduce her sentence if she should do so. It would be inappropriate for the Commission to do this as a part of a determination but it would not be inappropriate for the interview staff to suggest it as a matter of course. It is not the role of the Commission to suggest the course of an inmate's confinement or rehabilitation. That subject is within the purview of the Department of Corrections. The Commission's function is to assess the propriety of returning the inmate to society and the issue to be decided by the Commission at its hearing is whether the inmate constitutes a threat to the community or not. In fulfilling this function, the Commission uses the Department of Corrections to prepare mental and medical examinations of the inmate and to produce reports. If the evidence indicates there is a mental health problem, the Commission considers it. In early 1984, the Commission published two policy letters dealing with the Commission operations; Numbers 4.17 and 4.20, both of which relate to medical or mental health status reports regarding inmates. The first, dealing with the request for these reports indicates that if the Commission requires an up- to-date report in these areas it may request it and in those cases where a hearing examiner for the Commission feels that the Commission would need it, it is the responsibility of the examiner to request it so that it is available for the Commission to consider at the time the inmate's PPRD is considered. Number 20 deals primarily with the language to be used by the Commission in citing a mental health status report as a source of new information used to alter the PPRD. Neither of these policy letters are necessarily pertinent unless it is considered that alcohol abuse, the language used in the rule in question here, is equated to alcohol dependency and alcohol dependency is considered either a mental health or medical condition. It cannot be found here that alcohol abuse, which may be a single incident of improper consumption of alcohol, is tantamount to or equates to alcoholism or alcohol dependency which may be a mental or physical condition. The term, "aggravation", is defined in Rule 23-21.02(1) as: . . . to exceed the matrix times ranges upper month limit. Alcohol abuse is not defined in the rule or anywhere else for specific use by the Commission. It is basically left up to each Commissioner to apply his interpretation of the term to the facts before him or her and most Commissioners have a common understanding of what the term means. The Commission considers there is a medical difference between alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence for setting PPRDs. The determination of whether to use a history of alcohol abuse may be based on whether the abuse played a part in the current offense or not. If so, the Commission generally will utilize the incident in its deliberations. If not, then it may not, but the issue of whether to use it as either aggravation or mitigation is discretionary with the Commission. Once it is determined to use alcohol abuse as aggravation in establishing a PPRD, then the amount of aggravation and time to be added is also based on the individual judgment of each Commissioner based on his or her evaluation of the degree of risk involved to the general public by the inmate. In arriving at this additional time, the Commission has a range within which it may assess a period of months, but there is no formula. In substance, the Commission is making an assessment of the risk - not a medical diagnosis and the issue is whether, because of that demonstrated alcohol abuse, the inmate constitutes a greater risk to the public if paroled. If so, then additional months are added on. If not, they are not. In that connection, expert evidence tends to indicate that abusers of either alcohol or drugs have a lesser chance of success than those who do not abuse. Alcohol addiction does generally lead to poor behavior and it is often a condition of parole that the inmate not drink to excess. Consequently, if a demonstrated alcohol abuser does drink to excess, the likelihood of his behavior becoming inappropriate again is high, but in addition, he will most likely be in violation of the conditions of his probation. It is again a question of risk assessment by professional judgment on an individual basis. Some experts define alcohol abuse as "a voluntary excess or inappropriate use of alcohol", whereas alcoholism is "involuntary." An abuser is not necessarily an alcoholic and trained medical expertise differentiates between alcoholism and alcohol abuse. Because of the fact that alcohol abuse is voluntary, some experts believe there is no reason to extend a prison term on the basis of alcohol abuse if the extension does not result in treatment for the behavior. Petitioner introduces the Commission's action with regard to inmate Nicky Berkart, wherein the Commission declined to utilize that inmate's alcohol abuse to aggravate his PPRD as evidence of the inconsistency of treatment of this factor. Mr. Burkart's situation is not comparable, however, to the issue here. None of the documentation considered by the Commission here was prepared by a doctor or medical professional with the exception of the psychologist's interview, but there is no indication that it need be. If the Commission had decided that additional medical or professional evaluation was necessary and pertinent, it could have requested it. What must be recognized is that an inmate has no right to parole. The sentence imposed by the court generates an expiration of sentence date (EOS) at which time the inmate will be released unless he or she has committed additional offenses. Parole, which is a release prior to expiration of sentence, is a privilege and if no parole is granted, the inmate will still get out at the EOS less gain time. Consequently, since nothing extends the sentence, denial of parole does not increase the penalty. The Commission may and does make abstinence from alcohol, or the use of antabuse, a condition of parole. Neither, however, is a guarantee that the individual will refrain from using alcohol. The evidence presented by Respondent indicates that it is not at all unusual for a parolee to commit offenses while under the influence of alcohol. Forty to fifty percent of all revocations of parole result from some sort of substance abuse. Many of those parolees have a history of alcohol abuse. Therefore, a history of alcohol abuse would appear to be a negative indicant of parole success. The aggravating factor in this situation is not that the inmate has the medical problem of alcoholism, but that the history of alcohol abuse shows that the inmate is not a good parole risk. It is generally a safe statement that people in prison who abuse alcohol are not a risk to society. Those who are released form prison with a demonstrated propensity to abuse alcohol are. In making this evaluation, the Commission is not, as was indicated previously, bound by any strict formula. Whatever qualification is applied, however, it must be applied on an individual basis and not across the board. Each Commissioner tailors his recommendation on what he knows about the individual before him. Based on the information provided, plus whatever information is requested as appropriate, an individual conclusion is drawn by each member of the Commission. These then are evaluated and a Commission vote is taken which results in the establishment of the PPRD.
