BEFORE THE

STATE OF FLORIDA

COMMISSION ON ETHICS

 

 

 

In re JULIANNE HOLT,††††† ††††††††††† )

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††† )†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Complaint Nos. 00-081, 00-084,

††††††††††† ††††††††††† Respondent.††††††††††††††† )†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† † & 00-093 (Consolidated)

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† )

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† )†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† DOAH Case Nos. 03-0122EC,

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† )†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† † 03-0199EC, & 03-03-0200EC

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† )†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† † (Consolidated)††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††† ††††††††††† ††††††††††† †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††† ††††††††††† )†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Final Order No. 04-002

______________________________)

 

 

 

FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 

 

This matter came before the State of Florida Commission on Ethics, meeting in public session on January 22, 2004, pursuant to the Recommended Order of the Division of Administrative Hearings' (DOAH) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rendered in this matter on October 30, 2003.† The Respondent and the Commissionís Advocate each filed exceptions to the Recommended Order and each filed responses to the otherís exceptions, the Commission was provided with the record (including a transcript) of the DOAH proceedings, and both the Respondent and the Advocate made argument to the Commission; and the Commission, having considered the Recommended Order, the exceptions and responses thereto, argument of the Respondent and the Advocate, the record, and the deliberations of its members, voted to dismiss the matter.

Accordingly, the allegations against the Respondent, Julianne Holt, as Public Defender of the Stateís Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, as contained in the above-referenced ethics complaints and the DOAH Recommended Order, are hereby dismissed.† †

ORDERED by the State of Florida Commission on Ethics meeting in public session on January 22, 2004.

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ____________________________

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Date Rendered

 

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† _______________________________

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† RICHARD L. SPEARS

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Chair

 

THIS ORDER CONSTITUTES FINAL AGENCY ACTION. ANY PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS ORDER HAS THE RIGHT TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY FILING A NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PURSUANT TO RULE 9.110 FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, WITH THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION ON ETHICS, 3600 MACLAY BLVD., SOUTH, SUITE 201, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32312, P.O. DRAWER 15709, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32317-5709; AND BY FILING A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL ATTACHED TO WHICH IS A CONFORMED COPY OF THE ORDER DESIGNATED IN THE NOTICE OF APPEAL ACCOMPANIED BY THE APPLICABLE FILING FEES WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. THE NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS ORDER IS RENDERED.

 

cc:†††††† Mr. Gregory W. Kehoe, Attorney for Respondent

††††††††††† Ms. Kathleen Clark Ford, Attorney for Respondent

††††††††††† Mr. James H. Peterson, III, Commission Advocate

††††††††††† Ms. Wanda L. Moore, Complainant

††††††††††† Mr. Joseph M. Moore, Complainant

††††††††††† Ms. Sharon Slater, Complainant

††††††††††† The Honorable Stephen F. Dean, Administrative Law Judge

††††††††††† Division of Administrative Hearings