19-002366PL Richard Corcoran, As Commissioner Of Education vs. Quentin Peterson Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, October 24, 2019.

Summary: Petitioner proved Respondent guilty of section 1012.795(1)(d)&(j); and violated rules found in rule 6A-10. Recommended: Permanent Revocation

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

RICHARD CORCORAN, AS

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 19 - 2366PL

QUENTIN PETERSON,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On August 27 , 2019, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

Lynne A. Quimby - Pennock of the Division of Administrative

Hearings (DOAH) conducted a disputed - fact hearing in this case

in Bradenton, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Ron Weaver, Esquire

Post Of fice Box 770088

Ocala, Florida 34477 - 0088

For Respondent: Brandon Vacari, Esquire

Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A.

Suite 110

29605 U.S. Highway 19 North

Clearwater, Florida 33761

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

Whether Respondent, a middle school teacher, violated

section 1012.795(1)(d) and (1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida

Administrative Code Rule 6A - 10.081(2)(a)1 . , (2)(a)5 . , (2)(a)8 . ,

(2)(c)1 . , (2)(c)8 . , and (2)(c)9 . , as alleged in the Amended

Administrative Complaint (AAC); and, if so, the appropriate

penalty.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On March 7, 2019, Richard Corcoran, as Commissioner of

Education (the Commissioner or Petitioner), filed an AAC against

Quent in Peterson (Respondent). The eight - count AAC alleged

Respondent was guilty of committing gross immorality or an act

involving moral turpitude as defined by rule of the State Board

of Education; violating the Principles of Professional Conduct

for the Edu cation Profession; failing to make reasonable effort

to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and / or

to the studentÓs mental health and/or physical health and/or

safety; intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary

embarrassment or dispa ragement; exploiting a relationship with a

student for personal gain or advantage; failing to maintain

honesty in all professional dealings; submitting fraudulent

information on a document in connection with professional

activities; and making a fraudulent statement or failing to

disclose a material fact in his own or anotherÓs application for

a professional position. The charges arose from an alleged

inappropriate relationship with a student, and an application

for employment in another school district.

R espondent c ompleted the Amended Election of Rights form by

requesting a 45 - day period to negotiate a settlement agreement

followed by a hearing if no settlement could be reached.

On April 10, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion to Re - open

File , attaching t he AAC and the Amended Election of Rights

form . 1/ Following a noticed telephonic motion hearing, the case

was re - opened as DOAH case number 19 - 2366PL. Following one

continuance, 2/ the hearing was he l d on the above listed date.

At the final hearing , the parties stipulated to paragraphs

1 and 2 of the AAC, each of which is adopted and incorporated

herein. Petitioner presented the testimony of the Manatee

County School District (MCSD) Investigator Troy Nelson; Florida

Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) C rime Laboratory Analyst

Jeffrey Carson; Palmetto Police Department (PPD) Chief Scott

Tyler; former PPD Detective Chad Oyler; MCSD School Resource

Officer assigned to Lincoln Middle School (LMS) , Jennifer Moore;

Sarasota County School District (SCSD) Princi pal Dr. Laurie

Breslin; and SCSD Superintendent Dr. C. Todd Bowden.

PetitionerÓs Exhibits 1 through 18 (pages 39 through 47) , 20 ,

25 , and 26 were admitted in evidence. 3/

Respondent was not present to testify, but was represented

by counsel. Respondent Ó s counsel presented the testimony of two

witnesses: pastor of the Mount Olive Missionary Baptist Church

in Palmetto, David Mazon, Sr.; and RespondentÓs aunt, Pam

Bellamy. Respondent Ós counsel did not present any exhibits.

A one - volume Transcript of the f inal hearing was filed on

September 9, 2019. After an Order was issued granting an

extension of time until September 27, 2019 , both parties timely

submitted proposed recommended orders (PRO). To the extent that

either PRO contains information outside the record of this

proceeding, that information has not been considered in the

preparation of this Recommended Order.

The relevant and material actions that form the basis for

the AAC occurred between April 2017 and June 2018. This

proceeding is governed by the law in effect at the time of the

commission of the acts alleged to warrant discipline. See

McCloskey v. DepÓt of Fin. Servs. , 115 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA

2013). Accordingly, all statutory and regulatory references are

to their 2016 version, unless o therwise specified.

FINDING S OF FACT

Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses

and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the

entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact

are made:

1. Respondent holds Flo rida Educator Certificate number

1299379, covering the area of music. The certificate is valid

through June 30, 2020.

2. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed

as a Music Teacher at LMS in the Manatee County School District.

3 . The Flo rida Education Practices Commission is the state

agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or

suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to

teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and

1012.796.

4 . The Commissione r is responsible for investigating and

prosecuting misconduct allegations against individuals who hold

Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have

violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla.

Stat.

Background

5. On April 28, 2 017 , Respondent submitted a resignation

letter to MCSD, and later that same day rescinded t his

resignation letter.

6. Based on a prior investigation, o n May 17, 2017,

Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand by the LMS principal

for poor judgement and poor classroom management .

7. MCSD Office of Professional Standards started an other

investigation of Respondent in May 2017.

8. In June 2017, PPD served a subpoena on Respondent, and

seized his electronic devices.

9. On August 4, 2017, Respondent was temporarily

reassigned to MCSD transportation office.

10. On August 17, 2017, MCSD placed Respondent on paid

administrative leave.

11 . In August 2017, Investigator Nelson completed an

investigation report that went to MCSD senior administrators,

includi ng the superintendent and its legal counsel.

12. A practice of MCSD is that once a n investigation is

opened involving a union member , th at union member is

represented b y a union paid counsel . MCSD communicates solely

through the employeeÓs counsel. At the time , Respondent was a

union member, and was represented by counsel during the

pertinent MCSDÓs investigations.

13. On August 30, 2017, Respondent was not present when

his counsel met with Investigator Nelson and MCSD general

counsel. They advised R espondentÓs counsel of the evidence

found regarding Respondent, and that MCSD was going to move

forward with the termination of RespondentÓs employment.

RespondentÓs counsel was in formed that Respondent could resign

his teaching position in lieu of termin ation.

14. Respondent submitted a letter of resignation to the

Manatee County School Board (Board), dated September 1, 2017,

providing for his resignation to be come effective on

September 12 , 2017 . Further, this letter provided that

Respondent would no t seek ÐreemploymentÑ with MCSD. The Board

was scheduled to meet on September 12, 2017, and would have

considered any termination requests.

15. Once Respondent resigned, MCSD did not have any

further jurisdiction over Respondent.

16. Dr. Breslin served as an assistant principal at SCSDÓs

Booker High School (Booker) when Respondent applied for a

position there shortly after he resigned from MCSD . She was on

the committee that interviewed the various candidates, including

Respondent, and decided to hire R espondent.

17. Respondent was hired by SCSD and taught at Booker.

During his probationary period, Respondent was released from his

SCSD employment.

Material Allegations

18 . The material allegations upon which the charg ed

violations are predicated are, i n their entirety, as follows:

3. During the 2016 - 2017 school year,

Respondent engaged in an inappropriate

relationship with K.A., a sixteen y ear old

female student, as evidenced by a picture of

Respondent and K.A. kissing.

4. On or about September 5, 20 17, in the

midst of a district investigation into

inappropriate relationships between

Respondent and female students, Respondent

resigned in lieu of termination from his

teaching position with the district, to be

effective September 12, 2017.

5. On or ab out September 22, 2017,

Respondent submitted an application for a

teaching position with Sarasota County

Public Schools. Respondent fraudulently

answered 'no' to the following questions:

Have you ever:

a) failed to fulfill a teaching or

administrative c ontract?

b) had any disciplinary action taken

against you by any Board of Education?

c) been removed or dismissed from any

position?

d) resigned in lieu of termination?

19. On the last page of Responden tÓ s S CSD application, he

certified that his an swers were true and to the best of his

knowledge.

Pictures

20. In June 2017, pursuant to a search warrant, the PPD

seized RespondentÓs laptop computer and two cell phones, and

sent them to FDLE for analysis. FDLE Analyst Carson was

assigned to retrieve a ny pictures and/or text messages from

RespondentÓs devices. FDLE Analyst Carson issued the results

via a report to the PPD. The FDLE report was not admitted into

evidence.

21. Mr. Oyler (and other PPD officers) reviewed the FDLE

report, including the pi ctures 4/ taken from RespondentÓs devices ,

and found no evidence of an inappropriate relationship a s

alleged by a female LMS student . However, Mr. Oyler observed

pictures of Respondent with another young (female) person.

22. Mr. Oyler contacted LMS Res ource Officer Moore to

determine the identity of this other young female.

23. Officer Moore, a 17 - year employee of PPD, has been a

resource officer assigned and stationed at LMS since 2013. In

e arly 2016, Respondent wa s investigated for Ðsome allegatio ns,Ñ

and Officer Moore had a conversation with Respondent about his

interactions with female students. Officer Moore advised

Respondent to:

So you just protect yourself. Make sure

youÓre keeping the door [to his classroom]

open if you can between classes with view so

the other [band/orchestra] teacher has

observation. DonÓt be alone with students,

especially female students. Make sure

youÓre protecting yourself and making smart

choices about it.

24. Officer Moore knows N.A., the mother of K.A. 5/ Dur ing

the 2016 - 2017 school year, Officer Moore and N.A. both worked at

LMS. Officer Moore would see K.A. , a MCSD student , when she

came to LMS to wait for her mother. Additionally, Officer Moore

socialized with the A. family at various parties, including

K .A.Ós graduation from high school in May 2018.

25. At the hearing, Officer Moore was shown a picture

retrieved from RespondentÓs devices of two pe ople kissing,

specifically PetitionerÓs Exhibit 18, page 39 (hereafter

referred to as the Ðkissing photograp hÑ). When shown the

kissing photograph, Officer Moore expressed no doubt or

hesitation in identifying the two persons kissing: Respondent

and K.A. Further, Officer Moore identified Respondent and K.A.,

individually or together, in the remaining pictures of

PetitionerÓs Exhibit 18 , pages 40 - 47. Officer MooreÓs testimony

is found credible.

26. Investigator Nelson conducted two investigations of

Respondent, and met with him five or six times. When shown the

pictures retrieved from RespondentÓs devices, I nvestigator

Nelson expressed no doubt or hesitation in identifying

Respondent in all of the pictures found in PetitionerÓs Exhibit

18, including the kissing photograph. Investigator NelsonÓs

testimony is found credible.

27. RespondentÓs counsel, throug h questioning of Mr. Oyler

intimated that K.A. manipulated and uploaded multiple altered

images to RespondentÓs electronic devices. Mr. Oyler provided

that he had heard K.A. Ðsaying that she modified the images,Ñ or

that she had Ðdoctored the photos.Ñ

2 8. K.A. did not testify in this hearing, nor did any

other students. However, Mr. Oyler interviewed K.A. during the

course of the PPD investigation. Initially K.A. denied having

any relationship with Respondent. However, w hen Mr. Oyler

presented K.A. w ith all the pictures found in PetitionerÓs

Exhibit 18, her reaction left Mr. Oyler with the impression that

K.A. and Respondent had Ðmore of a romantic, physical

relationship.Ñ Mr. OylerÓs testimony is found credible.

29. Pastor Mazon was asked the foll owing question: ÐDo

you recognize the male in that photograph [the kissing

photograph]?Ñ H e answered ÐNot really, not from that angle . .

. no, not really.Ñ He was t hen asked specifically: ÐDoes that

appear to be Mr. Peterson [Respondent] in that photo graph?Ñ

Pastor Mazon responded: ÐIt would be hard for me to tell from

the side view like that. I would have to see it from the

front.Ñ And when shown the same kissing photograph in color and

asked if the male was Respondent, Pastor Mazon replied: ÐTha tÓs

still a hard call for me. You know, skin tone. But then I see

a scar from Î on behind the ear, which I never saw, which I

never - - thatÓs kind of hard for me, yeah. . . . I wouldnÓt be

able to identify him in that fashion.Ñ Pastor Mazon was unable

to confirm or deny that Respondent was in the kissing

photograph, yet he positively identified Respondent in each

remaining picture of PetitionerÓs Exhibit 18. Pastor MazonÓs

testimony lacks clarity and credibility as he waffled on

identifying Respondent in the first picture , but had no

hesitation in the remaining pictures.

30. Ms. Bellamy, RespondentÓs aunt, testified that she did

not recognize the male in the kissing photograph. In the

remaining pictures, Ms. Bellamy confirmed Respondent was in the

p ictures on pages 40 and 42 of Exhibit 18, but was not in the

pictures on pages 41 or 43 through 47 . Ms. Bellamy did confirm

that Respondent was in the picture in PetitionerÓs Exhibit 20.

As RespondentÓs relative, Ms. BellamyÓs testimony appears to be

sel ective and is not found credible.

Sarasota County School District

31. PetitionerÓs Exhibit 17, which was admitted without

objection, provided that Respondent was under contract with MCSD

to serve as an instru ctional employee for the 2017 - 2018 school

ye ar.

32. PetitionerÓs Exhibit 12, RespondentÓs resignation

letter, which was admitted without objection, provided that

Respondent resigned his MCSD position for the 2017 - 2018 school

year, effective September 12, 2017. Further, Respondent agreed

to not s eek reemployment with MCSD.

33. Dr. Breslin wa s an assistant principal at Booker in

Sarasota, Florida , fo r the 2017 - 2018 school year. She served on

the committee that interviewed candidates for a teaching

position at Booker.

34. Dr. Breslin reviewed a nd relied upon RespondentÓs SCSD

application, and interviewed Respondent (with the other

committee members) for the Booker teaching position. Further,

Dr. Breslin performed the reference checks regarding

RespondentÓs application. Dr. Breslin was instrume ntal in the

decision to hire Respondent for the position at Booker.

35. Dr. Breslin was never provided a copy of RespondentÓs

letter of reprimand or his MCSD resignation letter. Further,

during SCSD Ós interview process , Dr. Breslin was not told that

Re spondent had been under investigation by MCSD. Dr. Breslin

confirmed that by Responden tÓ s failure to tell her (or the

committee) of these (the letter of reprimand, his resignation

letter from MCSD, and/or the investigation), Respondent gave a

false presen tation. Had Dr. Breslin known of any of these,

Respondent would not have been brought in for an interview and

would not have been hired.

36. Dr. Bowden testified that Respondent was released from

his SCSD teaching contract during his probationary period.

Typically, SCSD does not provide a reason for an employeeÓs

release. However in this case, RespondentÓs employment was

terminated based on his arrest.

37. Dr. Bowden also testified that RespondentÓs failure to

advise SCSD of his resignation from MCSD , his letter of

reprimand , and that he was under investigation w as tantamount to

falsification of his application to work for SCSD.

38. Respondent was represented by competent counsel ,

du ring MCSD Ós investigation and his ultimate resignation from

MCSD .

C ONCLUSIONS OF LAW

39 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

case pursuant to section 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes.

40. Petitioner is responsible for filing complaints and

prose cuting allegations of misconduct against instructional

personnel holding educator certificates. §§ 1012.795(1) and

1012.796(6), Fla. Stat.

41. Petitioner seeks to impose license discipline. A

proceeding to impose discipline against a professional licens e

is penal in nature, and Petitioner has the burden to prove the

allegations by clear and convincing evidence. See DepÓt of

Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co., Inc. , 670 So. 2d 932

(Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

42. Cle ar and convincing evidence has been said to

require:

[T]hat the evidence must be found to be

credible; the facts to which the witnesses

testify must be distinctly remembered; the

testimony must be precise and explicit and

the witnesses mu st be lacking in confusion

as to the facts in issue. The evidence must

be of such weight that it produces in the

mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or

conviction, without hesitancy, as to the

truth of the allegations sought to be

established.

In re Henson , 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Slomowitz

v. Walke r , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). ÐAlthough

this standard of proof may be met where t h e evidence is in

conflict, . . . it seems to preclude evidence that is ambiguous.Ñ

Westingh o use Elec. Corp. v. Shuler Bro s ., Inc. , 590 So. 2d 986,

988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

43 . The grounds proven in support of PetitionerÓs

assertion that RespondentÓs license should be disciplined must

be those specifically alleged in the A AC . See e.g . , Trevisani

v. DepÓt of He alth , 908 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005);

Cottrill v. DepÓt of Ins. , 685 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996);

Kinney v. DepÓt of State , 501 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987);

Hunter v. DepÓt of ProfÓl Reg . , 458 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA

1984). Due process prohibi ts Petitioner from taking

disciplinary action against a licensee based on matters not

specifically alleged in the charging instruments, unless those

matters have been tried by consent. See Delk v. DepÓt of ProfÓl

Reg. , 595 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 19 92).

44. As discussed at hearing, section 120 . 57(1)(c) states

in part that Ð[h]earsay evidence may be used for the purposes of

supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be

sufficient in itself to support a finding.Ñ The testimony of

Mr . Oyler of what he heard K.A. state is hearsay, and did not

form the basis of any finding of fact.

4 5 . Exhibits 8, 25 , and 26 were objected to by Respondent

as hearsay. The documents were admitted because chapter 120

allows the admission of hearsay, with the caveat that hearsay

can only be used to supplement or explain other competent

evidence, but c an not itself support a finding of fact. The

exhibits supplemented or explained other evidence presented at

hearing.

4 6 . Count 1 charges Respondent with comm itting gross

immorality or an act involving moral turpitude as defined by

rule of the State Board of Education, in violation of section

1012.795(1)(d). The evidence was clear and convincing that

Respondent violated this statute by engaging in an inappropr iate

relationship w ith a student as evidenced by the kissing

photograph . The kissing photograph displays Respondent and K.A.

in a romantic kiss, with eyes closed, while K.A.Ós hand lay on

the side of RespondentÓs face.

4 7 . Respondent contends that the st andard of proof was not

met as to this allegation (or the others) because the picture(s)

fails to prove an inappropriate relationship between Respondent

and a s t udent. Respondent suggests that the Ðcontext

surrounding the kissÑ is necessary. It is not. No contextual

explanation could legitimize the romantic kiss between

Respondent and K.A. In this case, the standard of proof was

met. The kissing photograph , removed from RespondentÓs

electronic devices, demonstrates an inappropriate relationship

between a teacher (Respondent) and a MCSD student.

4 8 . By virtue of their leadership capacity, teachers are

traditionally held to a high moral standard in a community.

Tenbroeck v. Castor , 640 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 19 94 ). Given

the amount of time spent wi th and the access to students who are

underage, it is imperative that teachers act in a manner that

sets a positive example. Teachers should never take advantage

of their position of authority and control over students they

encounter. Appropriate boundar ies are an essential part of a

teacherÓs responsibilities. Respondent crossed the line by

fail ing to maintain an appropriate and necessary teacher - student

relationship.

49 . Count 2 charges Respondent with violatin g section

1012.795(1)(j) by violating t he rules setting out the Principles

of Professional Conduct for the Education P r ofession. Count 2 is

derivative of the rule violations charged in Counts 3 through 5.

5 0 . Count 3 charges a violation of r ule 6A - 10.081(3)(a)

for failure to Ðmake reasonable e ffort to protect the student

from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the studentÓs

mental and/or physical health and/or safety . Ñ No students

testified in this case, nor did Respondent. There was no

testimony or evidence of Ðconditions harmful to le arning and/or

to the studentÓs mental and/or physical health and/or safety . Ñ

This violation was not proven.

5 1 . Count 4 charges a violation of rule 6 A - 10.081(2)(a)5 .

for intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary

embarrassment or disparagement. K.A . did not testify in this

case. While it is clear that RespondentÓs relationship with

K.A. was inappropriate, there was simply no testimony or

evidence that K.A. was unnecessarily embarrassed or disparaged

by the kissing photograph, the other picture s or the

relationship . This violation was not proven.

5 2 . Count 5 charges a violation of rule 6 A - 10.081(2)(a)8 .

for exploiting a relationship with a student for personal gain

or advantage. RespondentÓs inappropriate relationship with

K.A., as proven via the kissing photograph , in and of itself,

proves this violation.

53 . Count 6 charges a violation of rule 6A - 10.081(2)(c)1 .

for failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings.

Respondent was told he was under investigation and had his

laptop compute r and two cellphones seized via a search warrant.

Further, Respondent, via his counsel , was notified of the

evidence that PPD had, and was advised that his MCSD employment

would be terminated or he could resign in lieu of termination.

RespondentÓs fail ur e to provide information to a potential

employer (SCSD) regarding either the PPD or MCSD investigation

and failure to disclose that Respondent resigned in lieu of

employment termination is compelling evidence that Respondent

failed to maintain honesty in a ll his professional dealings.

5 4 . Count 7 charges a violation of rule 6 A - 10.081(2)(c)8 .

for submitting fraudulent information on a document in

connection with professional activities. RespondentÓs

application for SCSD employment ( PetitionerÓs Exhibit 13 ) was

object ed to on the basis of relevancy and uncorroborated

hearsay. The SCSD application is plainly relevant , and the

hearsay objection was addressed through Dr. Breslin Ós testimony.

RespondentÓs application contained fraudulent information, in

that he answer ed ÐnoÑ to the question asking whether he ever

resigned in lieu of termination . Dr. Breslin testified

Respondent had a 2016 - 2017 MCSD employment teaching contract and

resigned that position, but failed to provide that information

to SCSD. Petition er proved this violation.

5 5 . Count 8 charges a violation of rule 6 A - 10.081(2)(c)9 .

for making a fraudulent statement or failing to disclose a

material fact in his own or anotherÓs application for a

professional position. Respondent was told he was und er

investigation, not only by PPD, but also MCSD. Respondent had

his laptop computer and two cellphones seized via a search

warrant. Further, Respondent, via his counsel was notified of

the evidence that PPD had, and was advised that his MCSD

employment would be terminated or he could resign in lieu of

termination. Respondent Ós fail ure to provide that information

to a potential employer (SCSD) proves a failure to maintain

honesty in all professional dealings.

5 6 . Section 1012.795(1) authorizes the Comm ission to

suspend, revoke (for a specific number of years or permanently),

or otherwise discipline a teaching certificate holder, where it

is shown that he or she:

(d) Has been guilty of gross immorality or

an act involving moral turpitude as defined

by rule of the State Board of Education.

* * *

(j) Has violated the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession prescribed by State Board of

Education rules.

5 7 . Florida Administrative Code R ule 6B - 11.007(2),

provides the fo llowing penalt y ranges for the violati ons proven

in this case :

(d)1. Being guilty of gross immorality or

an act involving moral turpitude as defined

by rule 6A - 10.083, F.A.C., of the State

Board of Education in violation of section

1012.795(1)(d), F.S.

2. When a student or school activity is

involved.

Suspension Î Revocation

* * *

(i ) Violating the Principles of

Professional Conduct in violation of section

1012.795(1)(j), F.S. by:

* * *

1 7 . Engaging in plagiarism or other frau d

or dishonesty in professional activities in

violation of paragraphs 6B - 1.006(5)(a), (g),

(i), F.A.C.

Suspension Î Revocation

* * *

22. Other violations of the Principles of

Professional Conduct and the F.A.C.

Probation Î Revocation

(j) Oth er violations of Section 1012.795,

F.S.

Probation Î Revocation

5 8 . Rule 6B - 11.007(3) sets out aggravating and mitigating

factors for deviations from the penalty range. Consideration of

the aggravating and mitigating factors does not warrant a

deviat ion, especially given the breadth of the penalty range in

the rule, but it does suggest that a stiff penalty would be

appropriate for multiple violations , anyone of which includes

revocation in the permissible penalty range. Respondent has

offered no evid ence or rationale that would support a lesser

penalty.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission

enter a final order finding Respondent guilty on Counts 1, 2,

and 5 through 8, and permanently revoking his Educator

Certificate.

DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October , 2019 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LYNNE A. QUIMBY - PENNOCK

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Adm inistrative 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 October , 2019.

ENDNOTE S

1 / On October 10, 2018, a prior case on the original

Administrative Complaint (Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of

Education versus Quentin Peterson, DOAH Case No. 18 - 4716PL), was

relinquished to Petitioner following the filing on October 4,

2018, of an Agreed Upon Motion to Hold Case In Abeyance

(motion). The basis for this motion was a pending criminal case

involving Respondent and similar issues alleged in the

Administrative Complaint. The AAC removed certain allegations

that would or could ha ve interfered with the administrative

action and the ongoing criminal proceeding.

2 / The continuance was necessitated by a death in the ALJÓs

immediate family on July 25, 2019.

3 / Multiple exhibits were admitted over objection, subject to

corroborati ng evidence to substantiate that which was in the

exhibit(s). Testimony was received to corrob or ate the exhibits.

4 / The pictures found on RespondentÓs electronic devices had to

be taken prior to June 2017 when the search warrant was served

and the ite ms seized.

5 / To protect the identity of students, all students and their

parents are referred to herein by their initials.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director

Education Practices Commission

Department of Education

Turlingt on Building, Suite 316

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Branden M. Vicari, Esquire

Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A.

Suite 110

29605 U.S. Highway 19 North

Clearwater, Florida 33761

(eServed)

Ron Weaver, Esquire

Post Office Bo x 770088

Ocala, Florida 34477 - 0088

(eServed)

Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director

Education Practices Commission

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 316

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Matthew Me ars, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief

Office of Professional Practices Services

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 244 - E

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(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 R ecommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.