ADOLFO J. EXPOSITO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the denial of license reinstatement was proper because the appellant had not satisfied a previously imposed disciplinary fine.
Adolfo J. Expósito appealed the denial of his horse trainer's license and parimutuel patronage privileges. The denial was based, in part, on an outsta…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
Adolfo J. Expósito appeals from an order of the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, denying Exposito’s petition for reinstatement of his horse trainer’s license and parimutuel patronage privileges. We affirm the Division’s order based upon the undisputed fact that Expósito had not, at the time of the hearing on his petition or this appeal, satisfied a disciplinary fine imposed on July 24, 1980.1
Our disposition of Exposito’s appeal on this ground makes it unnecessary for us to address the merits of his argument that the hearing officer relied solely upon an improper reason, i.e., Exposito’s alleged lack of remorse for his prior conduct, in denying the reinstatement of Exposito’s license. However, in order to guide the Division in its consideration of future petitions for license reinstatement, we remind the Division that a party may not be penalized for lack of “remorse” where he has a legitimate right to maintain his innocence. Cf. State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1986) (defendant’s lack of remorse could not support upward departure sentence where defendant claimed she was innocent of charged offense); Watkins v. State, 498 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (defendant’s lack of remorse insufficient reason for departure sentence where defendant merely exercised constitutional right by asserting innocence). But see Florida Bar v. Mickens, 505 So. 2d 1319 (Fla.1987) (respondent’s lack of remorse and statement that he would persist in unauthorized practice of law supported referee’s recommended disciplinary action).
Affirmed.
. This disciplinary fine was the first in a series of sanctions invoked against Expósito for three separate incidents culminating in the revocation of his trainer's license.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitmore v. State, 27 So. 3d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…y cannot be used against him or her during any stage of the proceedings because due process guarantees an individual the right to maintain innocence even when faced with evidence of overwhelming guilt.”); Exposito v. State, Dep’t of Bus. Regulation, 508 So. 2d 451, 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (“[A] party may not be penalized for lack of ‘remorse’ where he has a legitimate right to maintain his innocence.”); Hubler v. State, 458 So. 2d 350, 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (“[Wjhere the defendant has at all times denied com…
-
Peters v. State, 128 So. 3d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…te, 16 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Gilchrist v. State, 938 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (defendant maintained that he acted in self-defense); Lyons v. State, 730 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Exposito v. State, Dep’t of Bus. Regulation, 508 So. 2d 451, 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (“[A] party may not be penalized for lack of ‘remorse’ where he has a legitimate right to maintain his innocence.”); Hubler v. State, 458 So. 2d 350, 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). As the Supreme Court has explained: A defendant h…
-
Holt v. State, 33 So. 3d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…d 1215, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Aliyev v. State, 835 So. 2d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Lyons v. State, 730 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); A.S. v. State, 667 So. 2d 994, 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Exposito v. State, Dep’t of Bus. Regulation, 508 So. 2d 451, 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Hubler v. State, 458 So. 2d 350, 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Harden v. State, 428 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, a person in Holt’s position is constitutionally entitled to plea…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1986)
- Marianela Caceres v. Milton, 498 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Watkins v. State, 498 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- THE Florida BAR v. Mickens, 505 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 1987)