04-000688 Rafael Puig vs. Department Of Financial Services Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, May 25, 2004.

Summary: Petitioner`s application for licensure should be denied since Petitioner failed to appear at hearing.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

)

RAFAEL PUIG, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Case No. 04 - 0688

vs. )

)

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL )

SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted on

May 10, 2004, by video between Miami and Tallahassee, Florida,

before Administrative Law Judge Claude B. Arrington of the

Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: No Appearance

For Respondent: Ladasiah Jackson, Esquire

Department of Financial Services

612 Larson Building

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0333

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a Temporary

Limited Surety/Bail Bond Agent.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner’s application for licensure as a Temporary

Limited Surety/Bail Bond Agent was denied by Responde nt based on

Petitioner’s plea of nolo contendre to two felonies in 1996 and

his plea of guilty to a felony in 1999. The matter was referred

to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), and this

proceeding followed. 1 By Notice of Hearing entered Mar ch 15,

2004, the final hearing was set for May 10, 2004, by video

teleconference between Miami and Tallahassee, Florida. The

Notice of Hearing was mailed to Petitioner at his last known

address.

Petitioner made no appearance at the final hearing.

Respond ent offered no testimony, but it presented 12

sequentially numbered exhibits, each of which was admitted into

evidence.

No transcript of the proceedings was filed. Respondent

filed a Proposed Recommended Order, which has been

duly - considered by the und ersigned in the preparation of this

Recommended Order. Petitioner did not file a proposed

recommended order.

All statutory references in this Recommended Order are to

Florida Statutes (2004).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On February 7, 2002, Petitioner applied to Respondent

for licensure as a Temporary Limited Surety/Bail Bond Agent.

2. Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida

responsible for licensure of Temporary Limited Surety/Bail Bond

Agents.

3. In processing Petitioner’s application, Respondent

conducted a routine investigation of his criminal history which

revealed the facts set forth in paragraphs four and five of this

Recommended Order.

4. On July 15, 1996, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo

contendre to two third degree felony offenses (both felonies

were Resisting an Officer with Violence) and one first degree

misdemeanor offense (Battery). Adjudication of guilt was

withheld on all counts and Petitioner was placed on probation,

which he successfully completed.

5. On July 20, 1999, Petiti oner entered a plea of guilty

to a third degree felony offense (Possession of Cocaine).

Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Petitioner was placed on

probation, which was subsequently extended. Petitioner

successfully completed the extended term of pro bation.

6. Respondent denied Petitioner’s application based on his

criminal history.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

7. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this

proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.5 69 and 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes.

8. As set forth in Respondent’s Proposed Recommended

Order, Petitioner’s plea of nolo contendre to two felonies in

1996 and his plea of guilty to a felony in 1999 constitute

grounds for the denial of his application for licensure pursuant

to Sections 648.27(2); 648.34(2); 648.355(1)(c); and 648.45(2),

Florida Statutes.

9. As the applicant, Petitioner has the burden of proving

his entitlement to licensure. See, Florida Department of

Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc. , 3 96 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1 st DCA

1981) and Department of Banking and Finance v. Osborne Sterne

and Company , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996). Petitioner has failed

to meet his burden in this proceeding.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and C onclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order

denying Petitioner’s application for licensure.

DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2004, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

___________________________________

CLAUDE B. A RRINGTON

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

D ivision of Administrative Hearings

this 25th day of May 2004.

ENDNOTE

1 / This matter was initially referred to DOAH in 2002 and

assigned DOAH Case 02 - 4815. Respondent subsequently filed a

Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction so that Petitioner could

atte mpt to get his felony pleas set aside in Circuit Court. On

February 20, 2003, the presiding Administrative Law Judge in

DOAH Case 02 - 4815 entered an order which closed that file and

relinquished jurisdiction of the matter to Respondent with leave

to file a motion to reopen the case if settlement could not be

attained. On February 26, 2004, Respondent moved to reopen the

matter. Respondent’s motion was granted, and the matter was

assigned DOAH Case 04 - 0688.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Honorable Tom Gallagher

C hief Financial Officer

Department of Financial Services

The Capitol, Plaza Level 11

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0300

Mark Casteel, General Counsel

Department of Financial Services

The Capitol, Plaza Level 11

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0300

Ladasiah Jac kson, Esquire

Department of Financial Services

612 Larson Building

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0333

Rafael Puig

1437 Northwest 13th Terrace

Miami, Florida 33125

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.