The Issue Whether Respondent should take final action to deny Petitioner's application for a real estate sales associate license on the grounds set forth in Respondent's Notice of Intent to Deny.
Findings Of Fact The "Key for License Denials," attached hereto as Exhibit "A," is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference as the Key to the Commission's Findings of Fact in this case. Pursuant to the Key for License Denials, the Commission finds the following facts in this case, to wit: 2,4,5
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a Final Order announcing its intention to continue to process Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate rather than denying the application on the grounds stated in its December 28, 2011, Notice of Intent to Deny. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 2012.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent was convicted or found guilty of a crime which directly relates to the practice of chiropractic medicine; and, if so, whether Petitioner should impose discipline on Respondent's chiropractic license within the applicable penalty guidelines or take some other action.
Findings Of Fact The Parties At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Mia Ann Higginbotham, D.C., was licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in the state of Florida. The Department has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed chiropractors such as Dr. Higginbotham. In particular, the Department is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint against a chiropractic physician, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Chiropractic Medicine has found that probable cause exists to suspect that the licensee has committed a disciplinable offense. The Material Historical Facts In April 2006, the State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit filed an Amended Information in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, which charged Dr. Higginbotham with six counts of insurance fraud as defined in section 817.234(1), Florida Statutes (2004); four counts of grand theft in the third degree, as defined in section 812.014; 24 counts of communications fraud as defined in section 817.034(4)(b)1.; and one count of organized fraud as defined in section 817.034(4)(a)1. Dr. Higginbotham had been arrested earlier on some or all of these (or similar) criminal charges, on October 21, 2004. The record does not contain the original information. The 38-count Amended Information also charged five other defendants, namely Francisco Javier Espinosa, Evelyn Cajuste, Romer Ferguson, Deborah Eugene, and Christopher Wesley Nelson.3 Two of these individuals——Mr. Ferguson and Ms. Eugene—— testified at the final hearing in this case. Each admitted having participated in a staged (i.e. fake) automobile accident on March 18, 2004, and, afterwards, having seen Dr. Higginbotham for treatment of "injuries" purportedly sustained in the "accident." Each claimed to have received real treatment from Dr. Higginbotham and other providers in her office. (Ms. Eugene testified that her back truly hurt at the time, not as a result of the fake accident of course, but due to a previous injury.) Each disclaimed any personal knowledge that Dr. Higginbotham had been aware that the March 18, 2004, "accident" was staged to defraud insurance companies.4 To the extent and as described in this paragraph, the undersigned credits the testimony of Mr. Ferguson and the testimony of Ms. Eugene and finds these facts, as stated, to be true. By the time the criminal case finally came to trial in February 2009, Dr. Higginbotham was the last defendant remaining, the others having previously made deals with the state pursuant to which they, or some of them, had agreed to testify against Dr. Higginbotham. During the nearly four and one-half years that elapsed between Dr. Higginbotham's arrest and the trial, the state had offered her numerous deals. Dr. Higginbotham had rejected all of the proposed deals because they would have required her to plead guilty, which she refused to do. Dr. Higginbotham consistently maintained her innocence throughout the criminal proceeding and has done the same in this proceeding as well. At the outset of the criminal trial on February 3, 2009, the state offered Dr. Higginbotham a no-prison deal under which, if she agreed to plead nolo contendere to eight of the 35 charges pending against her, the state would recommend that adjudication of guilt be withheld and that she be sentenced to a term of probation. Significantly, the state did not demand that Dr. Higginbotham relinquish her chiropractic license as consideration for the deal. Dr. Higginbotham had very little time to think about whether to accept the state's offer. Her defense attorney was adamant that she accept the deal because juries are unpredictable and the proposed plea bargain would eliminate the risk of incarceration. As Dr. Higginbotham recalled the scene, in testimony the undersigned accepts as credible and persuasive, "[My attorney] was screaming at me at the top of his lungs that he felt I needed to take this deal and all he was concerned about was that . . . I wouldn't be going to jail and he said you never know what could happen." The adverse consequences of a guilty verdict would have been devastating for Dr. Higginbotham. She faced the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence if convicted——in the worst case scenario, about 160 years, the prosecutor had stated. Were she to be incarcerated for even a fraction of that period, Dr. Higginbotham's professional life would be finished and her personal life shattered. In regard to the latter, Dr. Higginbotham wanted to start a family but felt she could not do so while the criminal case was pending. She likely would lose that opportunity if she spent her childbearing years behind bars. Ultimately, Dr. Higginbotham accepted the state's offer because, as she put it, "at the time I was scared, I was nervous, I was under a lot of stress. My attorney was putting an enormous amount of pressure on me and I felt I really had no other choice." The undersigned accepts this testimony as truthful and finds that Dr. Higginbotham agreed to plead nolo contendere, not because she had a guilty conscience, but to avoid the catastrophic downside of a guilty verdict, which she needed to reckon a possibility, despite being conscious of her own innocence. Consequently, Dr. Higginbotham pleaded no contest to four counts of insurance fraud as defined in section 817.234(1), Florida Statutes (2004), and four counts of communications fraud as defined in section 817.034(4)(b)1. (the "Uncontested Charges"). The court accepted the plea and entered an order disposing of the case, which is captioned "Finding of Guilt and Order Withholding Adjudication/Special Conditions" (the "Order"). In the Order, after reciting that it appeared Dr. Higginbotham "ha[d] been found guilty" of the Uncontested Charges "upon the entry of a nolo contendere plea," and that it appeared Dr. Higginbotham should not "presently [be required] to suffer the penalty imposed by law," the court ordered that "adjudication of guilt be . . . stayed and withheld." The court placed Dr. Higginbotham on probation for a period of four years, subject to early termination after the successful completion of two years. The court further ordered Dr. Higginbotham to pay about $2,300 in costs but reserved ruling on whether to require her to make restitution. Due to the insufficiency of the evidence, the undersigned is unable to make any findings of fact regarding the conduct of Dr. Higginbotham which gave rise to the Uncontested Charges. Simply put, given the minimal persuasive evidence regarding Dr. Higginbotham's conduct, the undersigned cannot determine what she actually did as a result of, or in connection with, the fake accident described above, besides (a) provide some chiropractic treatment to persons who falsely told her they had been hurt, as found above, and (b) plead no contest to the Uncontested Charges. In short, other than the undisputed fact of the plea, there is no persuasive evidence in the record to support a finding that Dr. Higginbotham committed any crime. Ultimate Factual Determinations Dr. Higginbotham did not impliedly admit guilt when she pleaded nolo contendere to the Uncontested Charges. Her explanation of the reasons for accepting the state's offer provides objectively reasonable grounds——consistent with innocence——for having entered the plea, refuting the implication that she acted on a guilty conscience or the substantial likelihood of a conviction. In this connection, it is further determined that Dr. Higginbotham, while being conscious of her innocence and never admitting guilt, entered the plea to avoid the possibility of being found guilty and sent to prison, potentially for many years; to be able to get on with her personal life; and to retain the ability to resume her professional career as a chiropractic physician. In addition, given that the state was willing to give up more than three-quarters of the criminal charges against Dr. Higginbotham; and that the sentence imposed (four years' probation subject to early termination) was lenient as compared to the range of potential sentences, including many years of imprisonment, which could have been imposed were she tried and convicted; the undersigned infers that the prosecutor's offer was a generous one, reflecting the strength of Dr. Higginbotham's position relative to the state's. In sum, under the circumstances, the no-prison plea bargain offered to Dr. Higginbotham was too good to refuse, given that an acquittal would have been only marginally more beneficial than a sentence of probation with a withhold of adjudication, whereas a guilty verdict would have been ruinous. Accordingly, it is determined as a matter of fact, based on the totality of the evidence including the plea of nolo contendere and the presumption of a conviction which arises therefrom, that Dr. Higginbotham was not "convicted or found guilty" of crimes relating to the practice of chiropractic medicine. Dr. Higginbotham is not guilty, as a matter of fact, of committing an offense punishable under section 460.413(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2008).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order finding Dr. Higginbotham not guilty of the charge set forth in the Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 May, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner completed an application for issuance of a Class "C" Private Investigator License. That license request was denied on October 30, 1991. On November 20, 1991, Petitioner challenged the denial leading to the formal hearing held pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The statement of denial was amended on December 23, 1991. The reasons in the amendment are associated with Petitioner's criminal law history. The amended statement of denial frames the dispute. Petitioner was charged in the case of United States of America v. Hugh Mattingly Padgett, Jr., No. 63-230-CR-J, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, with having in his possession and custody, and under his control, a still and distilling apparatus set up, which had not been registered as required by law, in violation of Title 26 U.S.C., Section 5601(a)(1). He was convicted in that case upon a plea of guilty and fined $500. He was given a nineteen month sentence with was suspended upon service of probation for three years under supervision. The judgement and order of probation was entered on January 31, 1964. The probation was terminated after two years of service. That action by the Court shortening the probationary period was by order drawn on January 17, 1966. On May 8, 1981, in Hunterton County, New Jersey, Petitioner was convicted of distributing a controlled substance, methaqualone; possession of that controlled substance; possession of that controlled substance with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute that controlled substance. For this conviction he received a prison term totalling ten years and a $45,000 fine. Petitioner served the prison sentence in New Jersey. There was a Florida criminal law case which was basically the factual counterpart to the New Jersey prosecution. That case was State of Florida v. Hugh M. Padgett, Jr., No. CF880-2813A2-XX, in the Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Polk County, Florida. On June 27, 1989, Petitioner plead guilty to the Florida case. That plea pertained to a violation of the Florida Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organization Act, Section 943.462(3), Florida Statutes, and trafficking in methaqualone more than five kilograms but less than 25 kilograms, a lesser included offense, Section 893.135(1)(e)3, Florida Statutes. Part of the sentence which Petitioner was given in the Florida case involving the controlled substance methaqualone was a five year mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to Section 893.135(1), Florida Statutes. For entering his plea the court sentenced the Petitioner to a period of eight years concurrent time with 192 days credit for jail time served. Later by order of February 14, 1990, in connection with the case, Petitioner was given credit for 894 days of jail time served, reflecting credit for time spent in New Jersey awaiting return to Florida. The two cases involving controlled substances stem from activities by the Petitioner in 1980 in both Florida and New Jersey. Concerning the 1964 Federal conviction, Petitioner acknowledges that he knew of the operations of what he referred to as a "moonshine still" but denies that he received any money from that operation beyond rent money from the person to whom he had rented a house and upon which property the still had been found.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which denies the application for a Class "C" Private Investigator License. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1992. Copies furnished: Ronald L. Jones, Esquire Jones and Koch 1200 East Lafayette Street, Suite 108 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary, Department of State The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondent has failed to maintain the qualifications required for a correctional officer pursuant to Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2006),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B- 27.0011(4)(b), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was certified by the Department as a correctional officer in the State of Florida, having been issued Correctional Certificate #170241. Respondent and Candida Nowlin are engaged and live together. They have lived together since 2002. Ms. Nowlin has two children from a previous relationship and she and Mr. Saria have a child together. At the time of the events giving rise to these proceedings, the couple was under a great deal of stress because of a serious accident involving one of Ms. Nowlin's children. On the evening of November 6, 2006, Mr. Saria and Ms. Nowlin had an argument. She asked him to leave, and he refused. In his anger, he slammed a cordless phone in their home against the kitchen counter. However, there is no competent evidence that he struck or grabbed her, or threw her into a wall. The only competent testimony presented is that he touched her arms in order to move her out of his path as he went to another room in the home, but did not harm her in any way. Ms. Nowlin felt that she and Mr. Saria needed some time apart, so when Mr. Saria refused to leave their home, she went with her young daughter next door to her neighbor's home to call the police. Her neighbor, Ms. Epley, was having a dinner party. She noticed that Ms. Nowlin was crying and she let her use her phone, but was distracted by her hostess duties. She did not remember Ms. Nowlin being injured, and Ms. Nowlin did not tell her that Mr. Saria had beaten her up. Ms. Nowlin called the police from Ms. Epley's home. Two officers came to the home, then-officer Barraclough and Sergeant Spears. They interviewed Ms. Nowlin, Ms. Epley, and Mr. Saria, and arrested Mr. Saria and took him away. After they had removed Mr. Saria from the home, the two officers completed statements from both Ms. Epley and Ms. Nowlin. Officer Barraclough testified that he saw scratches and red marks on Ms. Nowlin's arms. However, his testimony was contradicted by all other witnesses who testified, and is not credited. Sergeant Spears, who did not testify, took Ms. Nowlin's statement. While she was doing so, Ms. Nowlin's mother came to the home. Her testimony, which is credited, is that Ms. Nowlin had no bruises or marks on her arms and that Ms. Nowlin was primarily upset at that point because Mr. Saria had been arrested. The only competent evidence of what happened between Ms. Nowlin and Mr. Saria during their argument is the testimony of the two of them. They both deny vehemently that he struck her or engaged in any unwanted touching. They both insist that they had an argument because of the amount of stress they were under, and that the police were called because Ms. Nowlin felt they needed some time away from each other.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 November, 2009.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner James Joseph Richardson has met his burden of proving actual innocence, thereby entitling him to compensation under the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act.
Findings Of Fact On October 25, 1967, Petitioner's wife prepared a breakfast of grits for their seven children. In a separate pot she prepared the children's lunch of beans, gravy, rice, and hogs head meat. She also fried some fresh chicken which she used to make sandwiches for her and Petitioner's lunch. She and Petitioner then left to get a ride to the grove where they worked picking fruit. It was their routine for Petitioner's wife to cook the food. The eldest child, eleven-year-old Betty Jean Bryant, would later serve it to all the children after the Richardsons left for work. It is not clear whether the children actually ate their breakfast grits that day. The school-age children went to school while the younger children remained at home. It was the routine for Petitioner's neighbor Betsy Reese to look after them. Petitioner's family and Betsy Reese and her children lived in the same structure, assumedly similar to a duplex. There was a common porch across the front. There was also a shed in the back yard. The school-age children returned to the home at lunchtime. Reese divided the food in the second pot into seven equal portions, and the children ate lunch. Right after the children returned to school after lunch, they began exhibiting terrible symptoms, such as leaking from their orifices, twitching, and rigidity. Teachers began grabbing the Richardson children and rushing them to the hospital. One of the teachers, knowing there were younger children at home, drove to the Richardson home. Those children were on the shared porch, displaying the same symptoms. Reese was sitting on the porch, holding one of the children. The teacher took them to the hospital. Petitioner and his wife were summoned to the hospital. Six of the children died that same day, and the seventh child died early the next morning. At the hospital, medical personnel did not know what substance was causing the illness and deaths. Sheriff Frank Cline went to the Richardson home and conducted several searches of the home and the shed attempting to find what had poisoned the children. When Petitioner and his wife arrived at the hospital, Cline obtained from Petitioner the key to the refrigerator and searched again. The next morning Reese and Charlie Smith, who was described as the town drunk, found a bag of parathion, a highly- toxic insecticide, in the shed behind the house. Cline and his deputies had searched the shed approximately four times during the day the children became sick and Cline had searched the shed by himself late that night, and no bag of parathion had been seen by them. It was determined that parathion was present in the pot the grits were cooked in, the pot the lunch was cooked in, the frying pan the chicken may have been cooked in, flour, corn meal, sugar, and other substances found in the refrigerator. It was also determined that parathion is what killed the children. Petitioner had a key to the refrigerator as did his wife. Indications are that a third key was left on the refrigerator for the babysitter's use. Petitioner was tried for the first degree murder of the eldest child Betty Jean Bryant and was convicted. The jury did not recommend mercy, and he was sentenced to death. His conviction was reviewed by the Supreme Court of Florida. Richardson v. State, 247 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1971). Petitioner's death sentence was commuted to life when Florida's death penalty was held to be unconstitutional the following year. In October 1988, 21 years after the seven children were murdered, the official file, which had been stolen ten years earlier from the office of the assistant state attorney who had prosecuted Petitioner, appeared in the office of the Governor of the State of Florida. Governor Bob Martinez ordered the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to investigate the disappearance and re-appearance of the file and accompanying information. That investigation resulted in new information and admissions surrounding the circumstances leading to the arrest and conviction of Petitioner. The Governor entered an Executive Order on July 31, 1989, appointing Janet Reno, State Attorney for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, to provide prosecutorial assistance to FDLE. That Executive Order further directed FDLE to continue its investigation into all statements and evidence concerning Petitioner's arrest and conviction and to also investigate any violations of the criminal laws or misconduct by public officials relative to the events surrounding the deaths of the children and the arrest and conviction of Petitioner. On February 13, 1989, another Executive Order, amending the first, was signed by the Governor assigning State Attorney Reno to the Twelfth and Twentieth Judicial Circuits to discharge the duties of the State Attorneys in those Circuits relating to the investigation and prosecution of Petitioner's case. On March 31, 1989, a third Executive Order was signed. It amended the first two and recited that Reno and FDLE had reported their findings to the Governor and that Reno had also advised the Governor that Petitioner had filed a motion for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit. The Executive Order directed Reno to assume and discharge the duties of the State Attorney relating to any post-conviction proceedings involving Petitioner. A fourth Executive Order was then entered amending the first three by adding to Reno's duties consideration of any further prosecution of Petitioner. As a result of the extensive investigations conducted by Reno and FDLE, Reno joined in Petitioner's pending motion for post-conviction relief. Petitioner's request that his conviction and sentence be vacated was granted, and Petitioner was released from prison. Reno also made the decision that Petitioner would not be re-tried for the murder of Betty Jean Bryant and would not be prosecuted for the murders of the six other children. On May 5, 1989, Reno issued a 35-page Nolle Prosse Memorandum explaining in detail the evidence she had reviewed, the conflicting evidence she had considered, the apparent- perjured testimony that had been given at Petitioner's trial, and the conflicting witness statements which the State had before trial but had not disclosed to Petitioner's attorneys despite a court order to do so. The Memorandum discussed additional problems she had encountered because the physical evidence from the trial 21 years earlier had been misplaced or destroyed, a witness had later recanted his trial testimony, and key witnesses had died since the trial had taken place. Further, as a result of the publicity surrounding her investigation a number of persons had come forward claiming to have evidence, but they had never come forward during the initial investigation. Reno and the two Assistant State Attorneys who worked with her on her investigation determined that in evaluating whether Petitioner should be given post-conviction relief and whether Petitioner should be re-tried, they would only consider the files, records, and evidence that existed at the time that Petitioner was tried. They considered the evidence that had not been disclosed to anyone for 21 years to be unreliable. Some of it was also conflicting. She signed the Nolle Prosse Memorandum as did the two Assistant State Attorneys Don L. Horn and Richard L. Shiffrin. At the final hearing in this cause Don Horn testified extensively as to the contents of the Memorandum. Although he, Shiffrin, and Reno had discussed the misconduct they discovered on the part of the Sheriff and the prosecuting attorneys, they knew that the statute of limitations prevented taking action against those public officials, so the Memorandum did not discuss any action to be taken against them. It only considered the evidence against Petitioner. The Memorandum concluded that a "totally inadequate and incomplete investigation" into the deaths of the seven children had been conducted. Obvious leads had not been pursued, inconsistencies were not resolved, and standard investigative procedures had not been followed. The Memorandum further opined that at the time that Petitioner was charged with murder, the State did not have sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. The Memorandum concluded that Petitioner "was probably wrongfully accused" based upon the evidence that existed at the time. Three years later a 260-page Memorandum Opinion prepared by United States Attorney Robert Merkle and indicating a need for further investigation into the 1968 prosecution of Petitioner was presented to the Treasurer of Florida. The Opinion, which was not admitted in evidence, was described as a "scathing indictment" of Reno's investigation. As a result, Governor Lawton Chiles issued a confidential Executive Order on October 16, 1992, appointing State Attorney Reno to further investigate all matters pertaining to or arising from the issues raised in the Opinion involving Petitioner's prosecution. On October 30, 1992, the Governor issued a second Executive Order deleting the provisions of his prior Order requiring that it be sealed and confidential. Assistant State Attorney Richard L. Shiffrin, who participated in Reno's first investigation, and Gertrude M. Novicki, Reno's Chief Assistant for Special Prosecutions, were assigned to conduct this investigation. Both of those Assistant State Attorneys signed the Response of the State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. The Response is not dated but a word-processing notation suggests it may have been issued on or about April 30, 1993. At the final hearing, Novicki testified regarding her Response. Rather than responding to or explaining each of the details set forth in Merkle's Memorandum Opinion, Novicki and Shiffrin re-examined the propriety of both the vacating of the original judgment of guilty and the decision to enter a nolle prosse. In doing so, they reviewed the original prosecution in light of the evidence at trial and of the law as it existed in 1968 and also reviewed the ability to re-prosecute Petitioner in light of the evidence currently available and admissible. The Response concluded that the Order granting Petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction and sentence was supported by the facts and the law and that the decision to enter a nolle prosse reached in 1989 was proper. The Response's summary states that the physical evidence against Petitioner did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the testimonial evidence as to Petitioner's admissions of culpability were of dubious admissibility and value, the evidence of motive was equivocal at best, and the decision to enter a nolle prosse was unquestionably correct. The summary ends as follows: "Whether or not [Petitioner] is guilty of this horrible crime is uncertain. What is certain is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt is lacking." The prior proceedings involving Petitioner and the prior reviews of those proceedings have focused on the criminal law standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard, however, is not applicable to this proceeding. In this proceeding wherein Petitioner is seeking monetary compensation for his wrongful incarceration, Section 961.03, Florida Statutes, requires Petitioner to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he committed neither the act nor the offense that served as the basis for the conviction and incarceration and that he did not aid, abet, or act as an accomplice to a person who committed the act or offense. Further, he must prove his actual innocence by verifiable and substantial evidence in order to meet the definition of wrongfully incarcerated person. Petitioner testified that he did not poison his children, that he did not kill his children, and that he never told anyone that he did. He also testified that he did not aid or assist anyone in poisoning or killing his children. In order to provide verifiable and substantial evidence in support of his testimony that he is innocent, Petitioner has taken two approaches. The first is by relying on the investigation detailed in the 1989 Nolle Prosse Memorandum and the testimony of Don Horn, one of the authors. (In its defense, the State offered the 1993 Response and the testimony of Gertrude Novicki, one of its authors.) In so doing, Petitioner has offered clear and convincing evidence that the investigation leading up to Petitioner’s prosecution and conviction was incomplete. The investigation revealed conflicting evidence about whether Petitioner had obtained life insurance policies on his children the night before they were murdered, which he had not, and whether Petitioner believed that he had. The investigation did not determine how the parathion got into the pots and skillet and various food products in the refrigerator or when. The investigation appeared to focus only on Petitioner as a suspect and not also on others whose involvement was suspicious. Toward the end of the investigation and prior to Petitioner’s criminal trial, the prosecutors wrote memos expressing concern about the weakness of their case and their possible inability to present even a prima facie case. After those memos were written, the Sheriff produced three jailhouse informants to testify that Petitioner admitted to them his crimes. They also gave statements that Petitioner said he thought that Reese did it and gave details of different motives she might have had. Rather than resolving the conflicting statements, the prosecution withheld the conflicting statements from the defense. The Nolle Prosse Memorandum discusses these statements and informants and finds that one of the jailhouse informants recanted his testimony after Petitioner’s trial and one was drunk when he testified. The third one, whose statements were given under circumstances that made them highly doubtful, died before the trial, and his testimony given at the preliminary hearing was given to the jury in the form of five witnesses who testified as to their recollections of his testimony. The informants were not the only ones to provide perjured testimony at Petitioner’s trial; the Sheriff also appears to have done so. A review of the Nolle Prosse Memorandum and the detailed evidence it discusses makes it clear that Petitioner was wrongfully accused based upon the evidence and lack of evidence the prosecution had gathered. It is further clear that Petitioner’s conviction and sentence based upon that insufficient evidence should have been vacated, and they were. It is further clear that re-trying Petitioner would be fruitless because the evidence available 21 years after the murders was insufficient: the physical evidence was missing or destroyed, many of the key witnesses were dead, and the evidence that might have been admissible for a re-trial was conflicting. However, the inability of the State to prove Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt does not prove that Petitioner is actually innocent of committing the murders or aiding in the commission. Petitioner’s second approach to providing verifiable and substantial evidence of his actual innocence is attempting to show that Reese, not the Petitioner, murdered the children. The 1989 investigation showed that, at the time the Richardson children were poisoned, Reese was on parole for killing her second husband with a gun. Although there was also a rumor that she had poisoned her first husband, no evidence was found to support that rumor. Parenthetically, there was also a rumor that Petitioner killed his three other children in Jacksonville, but that was also untrue. Similarly, there was a rumor that Sheriff Cline fathered Reese’s granddaughter and that was why he steered the investigation away from her. The blood tests of all concerned done as part of the 1989 investigation proved that rumor also untrue. Petitioner relies also upon the facts that Reese was the last person in the Richardson home on the day in question, the person who served the children the poisoned lunch, and the person who found the parathion in the shed. Her unconcerned behavior while the Richardson toddlers were exhibiting horrible symptoms on her porch and her lack of concern about whether her children who were playing there might be at risk from whatever was making the Richardson children so sick are suggested to be evidence that she knew why the Richardson children were sick and why her children would not be. It was also suggested that she must have been the murderer since her third husband had gone to Jacksonville with Petitioner and his wife but they had returned without Reese’s husband who never did return to her. Petitioner relies heavily on evidence which he suggests constitutes admissions of her guilt by Reese. The 1988 investigation considered an affidavit by one certified nursing assistant and a taped interview of another, both of whom worked at a nursing home where Reese became a patient in 1986. The affidavit by Belinda Romeo asserts that Romeo asked Reese on more than 100 separate occasions if she killed the seven Richardson children, that Reese replied that she did, and that Reese was competent at the times Romeo asked that question. On the other hand, the transcript of a taped interview of Doris Harris, who was present several times when Romeo questioned Reese, is clearly contrary to that affidavit. Harris states that by the time Reese was admitted to the nursing home, she was incontinent, unable to walk, unable to feed herself, only “half way aware,” unable to say what day or year it was, "back to a child's state," and suffering from Alzheimer’s. When Romeo would ask if she killed the children, she would say that she killed them, say the name Charlie, and then lapse into incoherent mumbling. Harris believed that Reese was saying she killed them because she was the one who fed them the poisoned food, and not because she was the one who put the poison in the food. Reese’s “admissions” are, therefore, ambiguous and not trustworthy. Petitioner also introduced into evidence a 1988 affidavit of Richard H. Barnard, the Chief of Police who began an investigation into the children’s deaths. After he got Reese to admit she was in the Richardson home that day and served the children their lunch, he was removed from the investigation by the “Governor’s office” in a phone call which he believes Sheriff Cline instigated. His affidavit undermines the statements of the jailhouse informants, expresses his concern that Sheriff Cline may have tampered with the jury, and states his opinion that Sheriff Cline framed Petitioner. He concludes with his opinion that Petitioner was innocent and Reese was guilty. The hearsay evidence and suggestions that Reese was guilty of the murders do not constitute verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner’s innocence. Opinion testimony does not constitute verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner's innocence. The Nolle Prosse Memorandum and the Response do not constitute verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner’s innocence. The testimony of Horn and Novicki as to what they considered during their investigations does not constitute verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner’s innocence. Lastly, Petitioner’s own testimony denying his guilt is not verifiable and substantial evidence of his innocence. Simply put, the evidence in this proceeding does not establish Petitioner’s actual innocence. Since Chapter 961, Florida Statutes, does not provide a definition of “actual innocence,” Petitioner argues that the definition should be that based upon the evidence it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him. That definition is found in Supreme Court of the United States and Supreme Court of Florida cases. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995); Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2008); Mills v. State, 786 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2001). Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. All of those cases involved motions for post-conviction relief, not claims for money damages. That definition of actual innocence was likely utilized when Petitioner was granted post-conviction relief by having his conviction and sentence vacated and being released from prison, which is the relief which results from meeting that definition. That definition of actual innocence tests the legal sufficiency of evidence. The Statute regulating this proceeding does not consider legal sufficiency; rather, it considers factual sufficiency by requiring the undersigned to make findings of fact as to Petitioner’s actual innocence if proven by verifiable and substantial evidence. In other words, proof of factual innocence is required. Perhaps the reason the Statute does not contain its own definition of actual innocence is that the Legislature intended the words to have their plain, ordinary meaning. A review of the two investigations of Petitioner’s prosecution clearly shows an absence of evidence proving Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, a review of the two investigations does not show that Petitioner is actually innocent. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proving actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence and, thus, has failed to establish that he is a wrongfully incarcerated person eligible for compensation under the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act. RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION Based on the record in this proceeding and the above Findings of Fact, it is RECOMMENDED that an order be entered by the Circuit Judge determining that Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proving actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence, denying Petitioner’s claim for compensation, and dismissing his Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 21st day of August, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert I. Barrar, Esquire Law Offices of Ellis Rubin & Robert I. Barrar 6619 South Dixie Highway, No. 311 Miami, Florida 33143 Raul C. De La Heria, Esquire 2100 Coral Way, Suite 500 Miami, Florida 33145 Dennis Nales, Esquire Office of the State Attorney 2071 Ringling Boulevard, Suite 400 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Earl Moreland, Esquire Office of the State Attorney 2071 Ringling Boulevard, Suite 400 Sarasota, Florida 34237
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Melvin Roberts, was born on July 14, 1967. He was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on March 1, 1993, and was issued correctional certificate numbered 151525. Respondent has been employed as a certified correctional officer with the Florida Department of Corrections since January 29, 1993. On October 28, 1994, Officer Elise Dillard-Gonzalez of the Miami-Dade Police Department was working as part of an undercover prostitution sting at Southwest 8th Street and 69 Avenue. At approximately 11:10 p.m., Respondent, who was alone, pulled over to the curb and motioned to her to approach his vehicle. When she did, he requested a "fuck for $20." She signaled to the undercover officers across the street, and Respondent was arrested for soliciting prostitution, in violation of Section 796.07, Florida Statutes. On November 10, 1994, Officer Sonja Crespo of the City of Miami Police Department was working as part of an undercover prostitution sting at Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 73rd Street in Miami. Respondent, who was alone, approached her and gestured at her by placing a finger on one hand through a circle made by the fingers on his other hand. When she went over to Respondent's vehicle, he offered her $20 for a "fuck." She signaled to other near-by police officers, and Respondent was arrested for soliciting prostitution, in violation of Section 796.07, Florida Statutes. Rather than going forward on the charges for the two arrests, the State Attorney's Office agreed to place Respondent in some type of pre-trial diversionary program. Respondent was suspended from his employment with the Florida Department of Corrections for 10 consecutive days beginning April 17, 1995, for failing to report his arrests to his employer within 3 days and for being arrested, conduct unbecoming a correctional officer. Other than the October and November 1994 arrests, Respondent has not been arrested. Other than the disciplinary action imposed in April 1995, Respondent has had no disciplinary action taken against him as a correctional officer for the State of Florida. The superintendent at the Dade Correctional Institution where Respondent is employed considers Respondent to be a good employee and would like to continue Respondent's employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, finding mitigating factors to be present, and suspending Respondent's certification as a correctional officer for 20 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 7th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Martin, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 H. R. Bishop, Jr., Esquire 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. Leon Lowry, II, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services 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
