08-2979/08-2980 CHARLES F. JACQUES, JR., v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, SIGN SPEC, INC., v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida First District Court » 2009 » 08-2979/08-2980 CHARLES F. JACQUES, JR., v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, SIGN SPEC, INC., v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION

State: Florida

Court: Florida First District Court

Docket No: 08-2979/08-2980

Case Date: 07/21/2009

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CHARLES F. JACQUES, JR., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, Appellee. _____________________________/ SIGN SPEC, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, Appellee. ____________________________/ Opinion filed July 21, 2009.

CASE NOS. 1D08-2979/1D08-2980 (CONSOLIDATED)

An appeal from an order of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Anna Small, Donna Holshouser Stinson, and Cathy M. Sellers of Broad and Cassel, Tallahassee, for Appellants Charles F. Jacques, Jr., and Sign Spec, Inc.

Joseph M. Helton, Jr., Chief Attorney, and Charles T. "Chip" Collette, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

WEBSTER, J. In these consolidated appeals, appellants claim that the Division of PariMutuel Wagering of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation committed reversible error in denying their applications for slot machine occupational licenses because appellant Charles F. Jacques, Jr., a controlling officer of appellant Sign Spec, Inc., had prior felony convictions. In doing so, appellants assert that the Division incorrectly concluded that any felony conviction was a ground to deny licensure under section 551.107(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2007). Alternatively, if the Division's interpretation of the statute was correct, appellants assert that the statute violates substantive due process and equal protection. Finally, appellants claim that the final orders violated section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2007), in several respects. Concluding that appellants' claims are without merit, we affirm. The Division issued letters informing appellants that it was denying their applications for slot machine occupational licenses because (1) appellant Jacques 2

entered a nolo contendere plea with adjudication withheld in Madison County, Florida to felony charges of production of marijuana and possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana, which were disqualifying convictions under section 551.107(6)(a); and (2) appellant Jacques, as president of appellant Sign Spec, had the ability to control the actions of the corporation. By agreement of the parties, informal hearings were held pursuant to section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. The parties' stipulations to the facts and the Division's "First Request to Take Official Recognition," which consisted of the legislative history of chapter 551, Florida Statutes, constituted the only evidence submitted into the record. At the

conclusion of the hearings, the hearing officer indicated that she was adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the letters of denial. After the hearings, both sides filed proposed recommended orders. The director of the Division entered final orders denying appellants' applications for licensure, essentially adopting the Division's proposed recommended orders. Specifically, the final orders found that (1) appellant Jacques, a controlling officer of appellant Sign Spec, entered nolo contendere pleas with adjudication withheld in Madison County, Florida for marijuana production and marijuana possession over 20 grams; and (2) these felony convictions were for disqualifying offenses, precluding licensure under section 551.107(6)(a) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D3

14.009. To the extent that disqualification under the statute was discretionary rather than mandatory, the orders concluded that appellant Jacques' criminal record showed that he was not entitled to the privilege of holding a slot machine occupational license. This appeal follows. Section 551.107, Florida Statutes (2007), became effective in 2006 after the Florida Constitution was amended to authorize the operation of slot machines at certain existing pari-mutuel facilities in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties upon voter approval in a local referendum. See ch. 2005-362,

Download 08-2979/08-2980 CHARLES F. JACQUES, JR., v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIO