16-006425EXE Aubrey Medaries vs. Agency For Persons With Disabilities Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, January 25, 2017.

Summary: Petitioner did not prove rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

AUBREY MEDARIES,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 16 - 6425EXE

AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH

DISABILITIES,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A duly - noticed final he aring was held in this case on

December 19, 2016, via video teleconference sites in Tallahassee

and Gainesville, Florida, before Suzanne Van Wyk, a designated

Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Aubrey Medaries, pro se

1338 Southeast 1st Court

Gainesville, Florida 32601

For Respondent: Melissa E. Dinwoodie, Esquire

Agency for Persons with Disabilities

3631 Hodges Boulevard

Jacksonville, Florida 32224

STATEMENT O F THE ISSUE

Whether the Agency for Pers ons with DisabilitiesÓ (Agency )

intended action to deny PetitionerÓs application for exemption

from disqualification for employment is an abuse of the AgencyÓs

discretion.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated Septemb er 16, 2016, the Agency issued its

notice of agency action by which it informed Petitioner that his

request for exemption from disqualification was denied. As a

result, Petitioner was determined to be Ðnot eligible to be

employed, licensed or registered i n positions having direct

contact with children or developmentally disabled people served

in programs regulated byÑ the Agency. In the letter, the Agency

reported its determination that Petitioner had Ðnot submitted

clear and convincing evidence of [his] rehabilitation.Ñ

Petitioner filed his Request for Administrative Hearing with

the Agency on October 21, 2016, which request was referred to the

Division of Administrative Hearings on November 2, 2016. The

final hearing was scheduled for December 19, 2016 , and commenced

as scheduled.

At the final hearing, Petitioner testified on his own behalf

and offered the testimony of his wi fe, Dawnese Medaries, and an

Agency provider, Diyonne McGraw. Petitioner did not introduce

any exhibits.

Respondent presented th e testimony of Leslie Richards, the

AgencyÓs Northeast Regional Operations Manager. RespondentÓs

Exhibits A through D were admitted in evidence.

The proceedings were recorded, but the parties did not order

a transcript thereof. Both parties timely filed Proposed

Recommended Orders, which have been considered in preparing this

Recommended Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

Parties and Background

1. Petitioner is a 41 - year - old male residing in

Gainesville, Florida. For the last four months Petitioner has

been emplo yed by Plane Techs, where he has been contracted out to

Haeco Aviation for repair of interior aviation mechanics.

2. Petitioner wishes to become employed by Successful

Living II, an Agency provider which operates residential

treatment group homes serving people with both moderate and

severe behavioral disabilities.

3. Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing

and regulating the employment of persons in positions of special

trust. Specifically, the AgencyÓs mission includes serving and

prot ecting vulnerable populations, including children and adults

with developmental disabilities.

Disqualifying Offenses

4. PetitionerÓs record contains two felony offenses which

automatically disqualify him from employment in any position of

special trust wi th children or vulnerable adults.

5. The first offense is the armed robbery of an ArbyÓs

restaurant in Lake City, Florida , in May 1998. Petitioner

conspired with his two male cousins, then employees of the

subjec t ArbyÓs, to rob the restaurant. A first attempt was

scrapped due to the number of customers in the restaurant, but

Petitioner returned and finished the job just prior to closing.

6. Petitioner was tried and convicted by a jury of both

armed robbery and burglary of an occupied structure. He was

sentenced to 32 months in prison , followed by eight months of

probation.

7. In the second offense the same month as the first ,

Petitioner and the same two cousins robbed a man in the parking

lot of a hotel in Gainesville. The trio held up the man at

g unpoint and deprived him of a duffle bag containing a computer

and other valuables, as well as his wallet containing cash and

credit cards.

8. Petitioner was tried and convicted by a jury of aiding

and abetting robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. H e was

sentenced to 64 months in prison, to be served concurrently with

the sentence from the first offense.

9. Petitioner was 22 - years old at the time of the

disqualifying offenses.

10. Petitioner served 64 months (approximately five years)

in a state co rrectional facility and eight months Ó probation.

The Department of Corrections terminated his supervision on

December 13, 2010.

11. At hearing, Petitioner denied that he and his co -

conspirators used a gun during the ArbyÓs robbery. He failed to

apprecia te that adjudication of the offense had established a

weapon was utilized.

12. At hearing, Petitioner downplayed his involvement in

the robbery of the man in the hotel parking lot. Petitioner

insisted that he had no idea his cousin was going to rob the m an

until the robbery was underway. However, Petitioner admitted

that he participated in the robbery by ordering the victim to

kick over his duffle bag, while his cousin threatened the victim

at gunpoint.

Subsequent Non - Disqualifying Offenses

13. Petitio nerÓs background screening revealed several non -

disqualifying offenses subsequent to PetitionerÓs

incarceration. 1/

14. Respondent alleges Petitioner had three probation

violations: (1) driving with a suspen ded license on October 14,

1998; (2) an unspecif ied violation on March 23, 2004 ; and

(3) failure to appear on May 26, 2004. 2/

15. No court records concerning these alleged probation

violations were offered in evidence. According to a letter from

the Columbia County ClerkÓs office, no records of the al leged

violations could be located.

16. Respondent submitted no evidence of the source of

information for the alleged probation violations.

17. The record does contain an Affidavit of Probation

Violation dated March 3, 2004, in which Probation O fficer Aar on

Robert attested to PetitionerÓs violation of a condition of his

probation requiring Petitioner to complete 100 hours of community

service within one year of his release from prison. The

affidavit states that , as of that date, Petitioner had submitted

p roof of completion of only 28 hours.

18. The record also contains an Order of Modification of

Probation entered on July 8, 2004, finding Petitioner admitted to

the violation, was found in violation, and adjudicated guilty of

the violation. However , the s ame terms of probation were

reinstated.

19. The record supports a finding that Petitioner is guilty

of only one probation violation subsequent to commitment of the

disqualifying offenses.

20. Petitioner was cited for driving with license suspended

(DWLS) in November and December 2006; October 2009; and February,

July, and August 2011.

21. With regard to the November and December 2006 DWLS

adjudications, PetitionerÓs license had been suspended for lack

of insurance. Petitioner claimed not to have known h is license

had been suspended when he was first stopped in November 2006.

22. For the November 2006 DWLS charge, Petitioner pled

guilty and was sentenced to serve 12 monthsÓ probation and

ordered to pay court costs, fines, and fees. Columbia County

Cour t Judge Tom Coleman presided over PetitionerÓs case, and

terminated PetitionerÓs probation on January 31, 2008, finding

Petitioner had satisfied all conditions of probation.

23. Petitioner likewise plead guilty to the December 2006

DWLS charge, was placed on 12 monthsÓ probation, and ordered by

Judge Coleman to complete 50 hours of community service and

produce a valid driverÓs license within 10 months. Judge Coleman

allowed the probation to run concurrent with the November

sentence. Judge Coleman termin ated PetitionerÓs probation on

January 31, 2008, finding Petitioner had satisfied all conditions

of probation.

24. On October 4, 2008, Petitioner was cited for violating

a municipal open container ordinance, and ordered to appear in

Columbia County Court on October 30, 2008. Although the citation

was admitted in evidence, no court record of the violation was

produced in response to PetitionerÓs records request.

25. Again in 2009, PetitionerÓs automobile insurance was

canceled for nonpayment , leading to t he suspension of his

driverÓs license . On October 27, 2009, Petitioner was again

charged with DWLS and ordered to appear in county court on

November 10, 2009. On March 11, 2010, 3/ Petitioner was ordered

to pay court costs, fines, and fees in the amount o f $373.50 by

September 9, 2010, or return to court on that date.

26. On November 16, 2010, Petitioner appeared before Judge

Coleman on the October 27, 2009 DWLS charge. Judge Coleman

withheld adjudication and again sentenced Petitioner to

12 monthsÓ prob ation and payment of court costs (of which $343.50

was remaining from the partial payment plan), allowing for early

termination within six months , if all conditions were met.

27. In 2011, Petitioner became employed at Target and

assumed the risk of drivin g to and from work without a valid

license in order to earn an income. Petitioner was stopped by

police three separate times that year and cited for driving with

a suspended license. 4/

28. During the February 2011 traffic stop, Petitioner

falsely identif ied himself as his cousin, and gave his cousinÓs

address, in an effort to avoid another citation. However, the

police officer discovered PetitionerÓs Target employee badge

which revealed his correct identity. Petitioner was charged with

both giving a fal se name to law enforcement (Count I) and DWLS

(Count II).

29. On March 29, 2011, Judge Coleman entered an order

withholding adjudication on Count I, but adjudicating Petitioner

guilty on Count II. As to Count I, Judge Coleman sentenced

Petitioner to 12 m onthsÓ probation and ordered Petitioner to

write a letter of apology to the arresting officer, pay court

costs and fees, complete 15 community service hours per month

until Petitioner either became employed or completed 150 hours,

and produce a valid drive rÓs license within 10 months. As to

Count II, Petitioner was also sentenced to 12 monthsÓ probation

to run concurrently with the sentence for Count I.

30. Unfortunately for Petitioner, the March 29, 2011,

adjudication constituted a violation of the proba tion order

entered on September 16, 2010. On January 24, 2012, Judge

Coleman entered a new judgement on the 2009 DWLS violation,

sentencing Petitioner to 20 days in county jail, but allowing him

to serve the sentence in consec utive weekly installments of

48 hours from 5 a.m. Sundays to 5 a.m. Tuesdays.

31. On June 5, 2012, Judge Coleman terminated PetitionerÓs

probation under the September 16, 2010, judgement as Petitioner

had satisfied all conditions of probation.

32. On April 30, 2013, Judge Coleman te rminated

PetitionerÓs probation under the March 29, 2011, judgement as

Petitioner had satisfied all conditions of probation.

33. For PetitionerÓs subsequent July 12, 2011, DWLS charge,

and August 27, 2011, DWLS charge, he was adjudicated guilty and

senten ced to two consecutive jail terms of 30 days, probation of

12 months, and ordered to pay court costs and fees. Judge

Coleman allowed Petitioner to serv e the jail time on subsequently

designated weekends.

34. Petitioner was released from probation on thos e charges

on January 29 and March 31, 2015, respectively.

35. Petitioner has subsequently obtained a restricted

license which allows him to drive to and from work, as well as to

pick up his children from school and other activities.

Subsequent Employment History

36. Petitioner has had varied employment since his release

from prison. He worked for Hunter Panels in Lake City on the

insulation assembly line for approximately two years, then

Accurate Car Care as Assistant Manager of the detail shop for

anot her year.

37. PetitionerÓs last job in Lake City was with Target,

where he was terminated for tardiness.

38. After his relocation to Gainesville, Petitioner worked

for the Florida Farm Bureau in maintenance before becoming

employed by Plane Techs. Pet itioner anticipates being laid off

by Plane Techs at the conclusion of the current contract with

Haeco, due to lack of contract opportunities.

39. In the summer of 2014, Petitioner was certified as a

basketball referee by the Mid - Florida OfficialsÓ Assoc iation.

Petitioner officiates basketball games three to four times a week

during basketball season, as well as post - season tournaments.

40. Petitioner had to undergo background screening with

Mid - Florida OfficialsÓ Association, and was originally denied

certification due to his criminal record. However, the

association allowed him to proceed with certification following

an exemption review.

Subsequent Personal History

41. Petitioner was divorced in late 2015. Petitioner has

joint custody of his five children, who reside with him every

other weekend, portions of each summer, and certain holidays.

42. For the last ten years, Petitioner has volunteered as a

football coach in Lake City (commuting from Gainesville) to

remain involved in his sonÓs life. Additionally, Petitioner has

volunteered as a coach for Columbia County little league football

for approximately four years. In this capacity, he has worked

with children ages five, six, and seven.

43. Petitioner has completed some of his required commu nity

service by sharing his experiences with high school students, and

encouraging them to make better life choices.

44. Petitioner remarried on November 12, 2016. The couple

met approximately four and a half years earlier. Petitioner

revealed his crim inal history to his new wife on their third

date, approximately three years earlier.

45. Petitioner met Diyonne McGraw a little over two years

ago through her husband , who is also a volunteer football coach.

Ms. McGraw became more familiar with Petition er through his wife,

who is Ms. McGrawÓs hairdresser.

46. Ms. McGraw owns Successful Living II, under which she

operates three group homes and is working to license a fourth.

She specializes in Ðintensive behavior focus,Ñ meaning she serves

clients with mental health issues, sexual issues, and physical

and verbal aggression, some of whom have dual and triple

diagnoses, and many of whom were recently released from

incarceration.

47. Ms. McGraw is a former probation officer. She

testified, credibly, tha t, based on her observation of

PetitionerÓs interaction with her own children, as well as many

other children involved in recreational sports, he has the

patience to effectively deal with her clients. Further, she

testified that Petitioner has demonstrate d a commitment to her

agency and a passion for the work it entails.

PetitionerÓs Exemption Request

48. In his exemption request, in response to the question

regarding the Ðdegree of harm to victim or property (permanent or

temporary), damage, or injuries ,Ñ Petitioner answered, Ð[n]one.Ñ

49. In response to the question regarding any stressors in

his life at the time of the disqualifying offenses, Petitioner

also stated , Ð[n]one.Ñ

50. Petitioner achieved a Graduate Equivalency Diploma

(GED) while incarc erated. Petitioner reported no further

educational pursuits.

51. In his exemption request, Petitioner accepted

responsibility for Ðpoor and wrong decision[s] [he] chose early

in [his] life.Ñ He admitted that he is embarrassed by his

charges, but is not ashamed to talk about his history and advise

young people that such mistakes can change the course of your

life. PetitionerÓs request also demonstrates a dedication to

providing life lessons for his children and preventing them from

going down the path h e chose.

52. In the employment history section, Petitioner listed

only his employment with Target in Lake City.

53. PetitionerÓs exemption request included two personal

reference letters -- one from his wife, then Dawn Teasley, and one

from Matthew Dilla rd, a teacher at Lake City Middle School in

Columbia County.

54. The letter from PetitionerÓs wife described Petitioner

as Ðreliable, honest and responsibleÑ both in his capacity as

maintenance and groundskeeper for her salon and as a head coach

for her nephewÓs football team in Lake City. She also commented

on PetitionerÓs Ðability, patience and genuine concern and care

for youthÑ and his ability to Ðbring out the very best of every

youth he coaches regardless of their skill set of level.Ñ His

wife fur ther described Petitioner as an Ðenthusiastic leader,Ñ as

well as Ðreliable, honest and responsible.Ñ

55. Mr. DillardÓs letter was brief. In the letter, he

stated that he has known Petitioner for ten years, has played

recreational basketball with Petiti oner, and has worked with

Petitioner at a local community center volunteering with youth.

He noted that he Ðhas never seen [Petitioner] become overwhelmed

by a given task or assignment.Ñ

56. Along with his exemption application, Petitioner also

submitte d a personal letter from Judge Coleman. Petitioner

received the unsolicited letter in April 2015 following

PetitionerÓs release from court supervision.

57. In the letter, Judge Coleman acknowledged that he

Ðcannot remember writing a letter like this bef oreÑ but wanted to

congratulate Petitioner. The letter reads, as follows:

As you know, I made several decisions to give

you additional time and chances to succeed

despite the opposition of others. I had

faith in you because I saw something in you -

a det ermination and focus. By your actions

you have justified my faith in you and I

admire you for that.

I am very proud of you and I know that you

will go on to accomplish great things with

your life. As you know, I see many people

daily and I cannot always remember faces, so

I request this of you. If you see me

somewhere and recognize me, come and see me

so I can congratulate you in person. I wish

you all the best life has to offer. Keep

working hard.

Ultimate Facts

58. Many of PetitionerÓs recent dec isions and pursuits

demonstrate a commitment to a life of responsibility to family

and community, concern and respect for others, and the importance

of steady and reliable work. PetitionerÓs volunteerism is

commendable, as well as his remarriage and suppo rt of his

children. Judge ColemanÓs letter is evidence of PetitionerÓs

determination to better himself and to overcome his prior poor

decisions.

59. However, many of the facts established about Petitioner

are grounds for the Agency to question his fitne ss to work with

the most vulnerable clients. PetitionerÓs attempts to downplay

his involvement in the 1998 felonies evidence a lack of true

remorse for his actions. His willingness to lie to a police

officer , as recently as 2011 , evidence a lack of respe ct for law

enforcement, and his lack of separation from his cousins, who

have been a bad influence in his past, supports the AgencyÓs

uneasiness concerning PetitionerÓs future decisions.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

60. The Division has jurisdiction over the subj ect matter

of, and the parties to, this proceeding pursuant to sections

120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2016) . 5/

61. Section 435.04, Florida Statutes, provides, in

pertinent part, that:

(1)(a) All employees required by law to be

screened pursua nt to this section must

undergo security background investigations as

a condition of employment and continued

employment which includes, but need not be

limited to, fingerprinting for statewide

criminal history records checks through the

Department of Law Enforcement, and national

criminal history records checks through the

Federal Bureau of Investigation, and may

include local criminal records checks through

local law enforcement agencies.

* * *

(2) The security background investigations

under this sec tion must ensure that no

persons subject to the provisions of this

section have been arrested for and are

awaiting final disposition of, have been

found guilty of, regardless of adjudication,

or entered a plea of nolo contendere or

guilty to, or have been adjudicated

delinquent and the record has not been sealed

or expunged for, any offense prohibited under

any of the following provisions of state law

or similar law of another jurisdiction:

* * *

(z) Section 810.02, relating to burglary.

* * *

(cc) Ch apter 812, relating to theft,

robbery, and related crimes, if the offense

is a felony.

62. The Agency based its disqualification of Petitioner on

his 1998 convictions for robbery and burglary.

63. Section 435.07 establishes a process by which persons

with criminal offenses in their backgrounds, that would

disqualify them from acting in a position of special trust

working with children or vulnerable adults, may seek an exemption

from disqualification. That section provides:

435.07 Exemptions from disq ualification . --

Unless otherwise provided by law, the

provisions of this section shall apply to

exemptions from disqualification for

disqualifying offenses revealed pursuant to

background screenings required under this

chapter, regardless of whether those

d isqualifying offenses are listed in this

chapter or other laws.

(1)(a) The head of the appropriate agency

may grant to any employee otherwise

disqualified from employment an exemption

from disqualification for:

1. Felonies for which at least 3 years ha ve

elapsed since the applicant for the exemption

has completed or been lawfully released from

confinement, supervision, or sanction for the

disqualifying felony;

* * *

(3)(a) In order for the head of an agency to

grant an exemption to any employee, the

employee must demonstrate by clear and

convincing evidence that the employee should

not be disqualified from employment.

Employees seeking an exemption have the

burden of setting forth clear and convincing

evidence of rehabilitation, including, but

not li mited to, the circumstances surrounding

the criminal incident for which an exemption

is sought, the time period that has elapsed

since the incident, the nature of the harm

caused to the victim, and the history of the

employee since the incident, or any oth er

evidence or circumstances indicating that the

employee will not present a danger if

employment or continued employment is

allowed.

* * *

(c) The decision of the head of an agency

regarding an exemption may be contested

through the hearing procedures set forth in

chapter 120. The standard of review by the

administrative law judge is whether the

agencyÓs intended decision is an abuse of

discretion.

64. An exemption from a statute enacted to protect the

public welfare is strictly construed against t he person claiming

the exemption. Heburn v. Dep't of Child. & Fams. , 772 So. 2d 561

(Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

65. The abuse of discretion standard of review set forth in

section 435.07(3)(c) has been described as follows:

If reasonable men could differ as t o the

propriety of the action taken by the trial

court, then the action is not unreasonable

and there can be no finding of an abuse of

discretion. The discretionary ruling of the

trial judge should be disturbed only when his

decision fails to satisf y this test of

reasonableness.

* * *

The discretionary power that is exercised by

a trial judge is not, however, without

limitation . . . . [T]he trial courts'

discretionary power was never intended to be

exercised in accordance with whim or caprice

of the judge nor in an inconsistent manner.

Canakaris v. Canakaris , 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980); Kareff

v. Kareff , 943 So. 2d 890, 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)(holding that,

pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard, the test is

Ðwhether any reasonable p ersonÑ could take the position under

review).

66. The Agency has a heightened interest in ensuring that

the vulnerable population being protected by chapter 435, i.e.,

developmentally disabled children and adults, is not abused,

neglected, or exploited. In light of tha t mission, the

L egislature has imposed a heavy burden on those seeking approval

to serve this vulnerable population when they have disqualifying

events in their past.

67. The statutorily enumerated factors to be considered by

the Agency in evaluating an exemption application are the details

surrounding the disqualifying offense, the nature of the harm

caused, the history of the employee since the incident, and the

time period that has elapsed since the incident. § 435.07(3)(a),

Fla. Stat.

68. Although a lengthy time period has elapsed since the

disqualifying offense, the felony convictions are for serious

crimes involving use of a weapon. While the felonies did not

result in any physical harm or property damage, use of firearm,

especially in a crowded restaurant, exposed others to significant

danger. Further, PetitionerÓs efforts to downplay the serious

nature of the crimes, and his role therein, belie his statements

of remorse and question the responsibility he has assumed for

them.

69. PetitionerÓs subsequent history, while laudable in many

respects, demonstrates a pattern of behavior disrespectful to law

enforcement.

70. Even considering PetitionerÓs volunteer work and

commitment to youth sports, his children, and building a new life

by remarriage and efforts at more stable employment, Petitioner

failed to prove rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence.

71. The undersigned concludes, based on the totality of the

circumstances, that the AgencyÓs intended denial of PetitionerÓs

requested exemption does not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Petitioner may be more successful if he applies again for

exemption after more time has elapsed since his non - disqualifying

offenses.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying

PetitionerÓs request for an exemption from disqualification.

DONE AND ENTERED this 2 5 th day of January , 2017 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

SUZANNE VAN WYK

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

Di vision of Administrative Hearings

this 2 5 th day of January , 2 017 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ In reaching its intended action to deny PetitionerÓs

exemption request, the Agency also considered a charge of public

discharge of a firearm against Petitioner which predates his

disqualifying offenses. The operative statute does not

authorize the agency to consider offenses which occurred prior

to the disqualifying offense, and to do so was error. Dawson v.

Ag. for Pers. with Disab. , Case No. 16 - 0661 n.2 (Fla. DOAH

Apr. 28, 2016; Fla. APD May 23, 2016)(criminal arrests and

convictions predating the disqualifying offense should not have

been considered by the Agency); Rivera v. Ag. for Pers. with

Disab. , Case No. 15 - 5039 (Fla. DO AH Nov. 10, 2015; Fla. APD

Dec. 8, 2015)(ÐConsi dering evidence of non - disqualifying crimes

committed prior to the disqualifying offenses exceeded the

powers and duties granted by the Legislature.Ñ); Edwards v. Ag.

for Pers. with Disab. , Case No. 14 - 4987 n.4 (Fla. DOAH March 17,

2015)(RespondentÓs cons ideration of PetitionerÓs criminal

offenses that occurred prior to the disqualifying offense

violated the principle of statutory construction which requires

statutes to be interpreted in a manner that gives meaning and

effect to all of their provisions.).

2/ RespondentÓs exemption review summary shows the date of the

probation violation as ÐMary 26, 2004.Ñ The undersigned assumes

this is a typographical error and has substituted ÐMayÑ for the

month of the offense. Because no court records of the offense s

were submitted, there can be no certainty of the date.

3/ The record contains no explanation of the delay between the

order to appear on November 10, 2009, and the order of partial

payment plan dated March 11, 2010.

4/ At hearing, Petitioner complain ed that the same police

officer stopped him multiple times either going to or coming

from his place of employment during this timeframe. However,

the record revealed that different officers signed the three

citations.

5/ Except as otherwise noted herein , all references to the

Florida Statutes are to the 2016 version.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Melissa E. Dinwoodie, Esquire

Agency for Persons with Disabilities

3631 Hodges Boulevard

Jacksonville, Florida 32224

(eServed)

Aubrey Medaries

1338 Southeast 1st Court

Gainesville, Florida 32601

Michele Lucas, Agency Clerk

Agency for Persons with Disabilities

4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

(eServed)

Barbara Palmer, Director

Agency for Persons with Disabilities

4030 Esplanade Way, Sui te 380

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

(eServed)

Richard Ditschler, General Counsel

Agency for Persons with Disabilities

4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

(eServed)

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.