From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

EXPOSITO v. DEPT. OF BUSINESS REG

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 30, 1987
508 So. 2d 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Opinion

No. 86-2870.

May 26, 1987. Rehearing Denied June 30, 1987.

Appeal from the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering of Department of Business Regulation.

Norman Rose, Fort Lauderdale, Cathy Jackson Lerman, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert B. Beitler, Tallahassee, Staff Atty., for appellee.

Before DANIEL S. PEARSON, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.


Adolfo J. Exposito 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 pari-mutuel patronage privileges. We affirm the Division's order based upon the undisputed fact that Exposito had not, at the time of the hearing on his petition or this appeal, satisfied a disciplinary fine imposed on July 24, 1980.

This disciplinary fine was the first in a series of sanctions invoked against Exposito for three separate incidents culminating in the revocation of his trainer's license.

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.


Summaries of

EXPOSITO v. DEPT. OF BUSINESS REG

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 30, 1987
508 So. 2d 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
Case details for

EXPOSITO v. DEPT. OF BUSINESS REG

Case Details

Full title:ADOLFO J. EXPOSITO, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jun 30, 1987

Citations

508 So. 2d 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Citing Cases

Whitmore v. State

to be required to incriminate himself."); Aliyev v. State, 835 So.2d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (stating…

Pierre v. State

e required to incriminate himself."); Aliyev v. State , 835 So.2d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (stating…