EDWARD DIAZ, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, 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 appellate court reversed the trial court's suppression of statements made by the appellee, finding that the record did not support the trial court's determination of bad faith by law enforcement in losing a recording of a noncustodial interview.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence because the record did not support a finding of bad faith by law enforcement in the loss of the interview recording.
[1] An applicant for certification as a corrections officer is statutorily disqualified if convicted of a felony under Florida law, even if the out-of-state conviction was cl…
[2] The determination of whether an out-of-state offense constitutes a felony for the purpose of Florida law is based on the potential punishment under Florida statutes.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaw enforcement interviewed the appellee regarding a sexual battery allegation and recorded the noncustodial interview. The recording was subsequently…
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.
Following an informal hearing before the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (“the Commission”), Edward Diaz appeals the denial of his request for certification as a corrections officer. We affirm.
The basis for the Commission’s denial was Diaz’s 1998 New York conviction for possession of cocaine. New York classified Diaz’s transgression as a “class A misdemeanor,” and he was sentenced to three years’ probation.1 However, because his crime was a felony under Florida law, the Commission determined that Diaz was statutorily disqualified from certification as a corrections officer.2 The Commission relied upon section 943.13(4), Florida Statutes (2013), as the disqualifying provision. That section requires, in pertinent part, that an applicant “[n]ot have been convicted of any felony or of a misdemeanor involving perjury or a false statement. ...” On appeal, Diaz argues that the offense to which he entered a plea was a misdemeanor under New York law, and thus does not disqualify him from certification.3
Our review of administrative agency action is limited, and the agency’s interpretation of a statute is entitled to great weight. See McNair v. Criminal Justice Standards & Training Comm’n, 518 So.2d 390, 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Although section 943.13(4) does not address the treatment of out-of-state convictions, the agency’s interpretation was not unreasonable. Cf Art. X, § 10, Fla. Const. (“The term ‘felony’ as used herein and in the laws of this state shall mean any criminal offense that is punishable under the laws of this state, or that would be punishable if committed in this state, by death or by imprisonment in the state penitentiary.”); § 775.08(1), Fla. Stat. *26(2014) (“When used in the laws of this state ... [t]he term ‘felony.’ shall mean any criminal offense that is punishable under the laws of this state, or that would be punishable if committed in this state, by death or imprisonment in a state penitentiary.”). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
PALMER, COHEN and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McNAIR v. Crim. Just. Standards & Training Comm'n, 518 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Albert v. Fla. Dep't of Law Enf't, 573 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)