This item has expired
Click here to view current advertisements similar to this one.
Judge Ronald Ficarrotta-Another
Florida Judge Abusing His
Power What can one do when failed by our
legal system? A system which has given judges too much power. In 1998 the
Florida Legislature gave a gift to the judicial branch. That gift was freedom
to sentence as they please. We believe that a judge should have some control
over sentencing guidelines but that control must have its limits. Judges do not
have the authority to make laws in this country but they are. We need action so
that our system of checks and balances works and stops this abuse of power. We
hope this true story will impact voters and help create much needed changes in
our judicial system.
This story is concerning the case of
the State of Florida
vs. Mechael Miller case number 04-CF-011061 Hillsborough county Florida,
Residing Judge Ronald Ficarrotta. For those of you not familiar with this case
Mechael was originally charged with Organized Fraud, Forgery, Grand Theft
second degree, Grand theft third degree, Uttering a Forged Instrument, and Counterfeiting.
These charges brought against her by her former employer Daniel P. Karpy of
Material Systems Engineering. He reported this to Police after Mechael
threatened to file sexual harassment charges against him. When I was informed of the situation I stepped in and
hired attorneys and a private investigator. We subpoenaed her employer and his
business records. Immediately he withdrew and denied to testify. He only showed
up for one deposition and did not supply any of the records which were
subpoenaed that would have cleared Mechael of these charges. We Motioned for
contempt charges against Karpy but Judge
Ficarrotta did not agree. In his one and only deposition he changed his story
completely from what he had previously stated in police records. It was clear
that he lied and the States Attorney Nolle Prosse all charges except one, a
single grand theft 3rd degree over just one of the original 60
checks in question. I believe they held on to that single charge to keep from
having to admit that they were wrong and had wasted the taxpayers dollars for
two years in trying the case. Mechael
had been threatened by her former employer and pled out to probation in fear.
Her probation officer, Ms. Occonner turned out to be the officer whom she had
dealt with at our business and due to the officers disrespectful behavior
Mechael demanded she leave our office. That incident made Ms. Occonner very angry. Due to the prior
dispute this officer disliked Mechael and caused her to violate her probation.
Occonner wrote a report full of lies and even included ex parte information which
made Mechael look terrible. This information
was emailed to her from someone who hated me and had never even met Mechael and
had no knowledge of the type of person she truly was. Judge Ficarrotta then
allowed that same ex parte information to be used in his courtroom.
Due to much of this Mechael was
denied her constitutional rights of due process of law. The first attorneys
involved in her case told her the cost to keep fighting would be extremely
high. They told her to take the plea and
never explained any options. The second attorney just left her with no idea how
to plea to the violation while standing in front of Judge Ficarrotta. We then
hired another attorney and were offered and agreed to a 180 day sentence by the
States Attorney and Judge Ficarrotta. Mechael told the attorney to accept the
plea because she new she would qualify for house arrest and would never survive
probation officer Oconner’s abuse but
due to a murder trial for which he was late, he asked Judge Ficarrotta to
postpone the sentencing for a few days and ran out of the courtroom. We were
outraged by his malpractice.
Mechael was so outraged and
distraught that she made some derogatory remarks concerning Judge Ficarrotta while
on the phone that afternoon. Someone notified DOC and they gave a copy to Judge
Ficarrotta. Judge Ficarrotta took those remarks personally and now due to his
bias and loss of objectivity sentenced her to 24 months in a State prison.
Judge Ficarrotta flew of the handle in the court room and when Mechael
attempted to defend herself yelled at her in anger to SHUT-UP. Judge Ficarrotta
never allowed any defense what so ever. You need to realize that this was
Mechaels first felony conviction and her first and only technical violation of
probation. I do not believe Judge Ficarrotta kept an open mind and Judge
Ficarrotta’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity,
impartiality, and competence were impaired.
As per the Code of Judicial Conduct,
Canon 3, B(5) A Judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.
A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct
manifest bias or prejudice. (7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a
legal interest in a proceeding the right to be heard according to the law. A
judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications as Judge
Ficarrotta did in allowing the probationers report.
I believe that Judge Ficarrotta should
be disqualified and the sentencing be reheard by another judge. Judge
Ficarrotta is also the presiding Judge on the high profile case of accused
murderer David Onstott which Mechael and I employed at the time of the murder.
We believe that due to this fact Judge Ficarrotta’s opinion of us was biased.
As per Canon 3, E(1) A judge shall disqualify himself in a proceeding in which
the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not
limited to instances where: (a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice
concerning a party or party’s lawyer.
Commentary to Canon 3 states that a
judge must perform duties impartially and fairly. A judge who manifests bias on
any bias in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the
judiciary into disrepute. Facial expressions and body language, in addition to
oral communication, can give to parties or lawyers in the proceeding, jurors,
the media, and others an appearance of judicial bias. A judge must be alert to
avoid behavior that may be perceived as prejudicial as Judge Ficarrotta did.
The day after we were granted a
hearing for mitigation of sentence and asked for a hold to be put on Mechael, Judge
Ficarrotta allowed her to be taken away to State prison. Judge Ficarrotta then
denied her to be returned for the hearing. As per Canon3 B(8) In disposing of
matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly a judge must demonstrate due regard
for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without
unnecessary costs or delay. Containing costs while preserving fundamental
rights of parties also protects the interests of witnesses and the general
public.
Mechael only scored 17 points, about
one third of the required points to be sentenced to prison. She had no prior
felony convictions and was threatened into taking the plea in the first place.
As per Rule 3.701 (b)(3) The penalty imposed should be commensurate with the
convicted offense and the circumstances
surrounding the offense! (7) Because the capacities of state and local
correctional facilities are finite, use of incarcerative sanctions should be
limited to those persons convicted of more serious offenses or those who have
longer criminal histories. To ensure such usage of finite resources, sanctions
should be the least restrictive necessary to achieve the purposes of the
sentence.
Remember
Mechael has never before been convicted of a felony. Only 11% of first time
convicted felons ever get jail time let alone two years as Judge Ficarrotta
gave her. Two years away from her minor children who needed her and had no
other family to turn too. Once again that was not taken into consideration by
Judge Ficarrotta.
There were other mitigating factors Judge
Ficarrotta should have also taken into consideration. As per Statute 921.0026
(e) The need for payment of restitution to the victim outweighs the need for a
prison sentence. (f) The victim was an initiator, willing participant, aggressor,
or provoker of the incident. (g) The defendant acted under extreme duress or
under the domination of another person. (i) The defendant cooperated with the
state to resolve the current offense or any other offense. (j) The offense was
committed in an unsophisticated manner and was an isolated incident for which
the defendant has shown remorse.
As per 921.001 Sentencing commission
and sentencing guidelines, provide for the impositions of criminal penalties,
and to make the best use of state prisons so that violent criminal offenders
are appropriately incarcerated and to ensure incarceration of : (a) Violent
criminal offenders; and (b) Non violent criminal offenders who commit repeated
acts of criminal behavior. Also as stated in the Governors Executive order NO.
05-28 The problem within the last few years, Florida DOC has adopted a zero
tolerance policy on technical violations of the condition of supervision. But
what has troubled the Task Force are the instances in which there is an absence
of any apparent nexus between the nature of the violation and any propensity to
commit another crime, let alone a heinous crime. What is the policy rationale
behind sending an otherwise compliant and gainfully employed ex-offender to
prison on a curfew violation? When the offense is unrelated to both past crimes
and any potential new crimes, the policy rationale is unclear.
We do not understand how a sentence
agreement can be made and then completely changed as per the Judge Ficarrotta’s
mood that day. Nor do we understand the rational behind the 1998 sentencing
guidelines. We do believe that a judge should have some authority to depart
from sentence guidelines but to give Judge Ficarrotta or any judge or any human
the power to go so far outside the point system as they feel is not just or in
any way serving the citizens of the State of Florida.
As per 921.002 the criminal
punishment code. (1) Make the best use of State prisons so that violent
criminal offenders are appropriately incarcerated. (1)(c) The penalty imposed
is commensurate with the severity of the primary offense and the circumstances
surrounding the primary offense. (3) When multiple reasons exist to support the
mitigation, the mitigation shall be upheld when at least one circumstance or
factor justifies the mitigation regardless of the presence of other
circumstances or factors found not to justify mitigation. In Mechaels case
multiple reasons do exist to support the mitigation but Judge Ficarrotta does
not seem to want to follow that statute ether. We filed an almost 200 page
mitigation to Judge Ficarrotta. After
waiting six months for an answer Judge Ficarrotta scated around the mitigation
by denying the enlargement of time to file the mitigation. Unless we can be
seen before an impartial judge what would be the use of filing any other
motions before Judge Ficarrotta?
Mechael is an absolutely wonderful
person. In the past 15 years that I have personally known her she has never
once intentionally set out to hurt anyone. As a matter of fact Mechael has always
been the person that everyone runs to for help and or assistance. I married
Mechael and took custody of her children to keep them from foster care.
The injustices have continued to this day. Mechael was originally sent
to Gadsden Correctional Facility in Quincy
Florida. While there she was
accused along with myself and her son, of conspiring to bring cigarettes onto
the facility. When she was interrogated she was told that myself and her son
had been arrested, how terrible a mother she was, and a slew of other lies and
derogatory statements. She was sentenced
to 30 days confinement, a loss of gaintime, and her visitation rights taken
away for six months. Now her contact with her son and myself were stopped and
her daughter has not been allowed to see her at all, due to an incident that
occurred while she was in school. It took numerous grievances filed at the
facility, to DOC headquarters, and finally to the privatization commission before
it was overturned.
Finally after a year of
incarceration Mechael was granted work release and sent to Suncoast Goodwill
Work Release Center in St. Petersburg.
I was her former employer and desperately needed her back. I moved my entire
business to St. Petersburg
and at great expense in order for Mechael to come back to work for me. She was
later removed from her job and accused of lieng to staff in official capacity,
violation of 33-601, 9-10. Mr. D. Akeeney of SWRC wrote this DR stating that
Mechael omitted information concerning her past romantic relationship with me.
No one at SWRC ever asked Mechael to disclose this type of information nor is
there any rule requiring her to disclose that type of information. The
definition of a lie is to utter a falsehood
or an untruth. Mechael did no such thing. The official report states
that she constructed and perpetuated a lie from the day she entered the
program. Mechael never lied to staff in any way, shape, or form and her file
clearly had me listed as her husband and guardian of her children. Further more
during the previous year I had been in contact with many people from DOC and
Suncoast concerning the upcoming work release status and all were aware of our
situation. Since that information was
already well known how it could be that she omitted that information and why is
that relevant in the first place. It clearly states in chapter 33-601,
(7)(b)(5)(e) employment of an inmate with a relative is not precluded. In the
official charging report it stated that Mechael was removed from the Coastal
Group and assigned to work at Global marketing. The truth is that she was given
a CC by Akeeney, which is what a Suncoast employee, Ms. Pat witnessed her
signing, as per her statement. It was not a DR as she thought. The DR was not
signed until Mechael was sent to Lowell C. I. Mechael was told by Akeeney that
she could not have any contact with me or her children and that she must find a
new job. In order for her not to lose her privilege of work release she did as
told as usual and found the new job with Global herself. SWRC would not give
any information to myself or her father as to why any of this occurred. We both
went on to contact the supervisor of classifications, Ms. Carone at Polk C.I.
to complain. Ms. Carone, not understanding why this was done to Mechael
demanded an explanation from Mr. Akeeney. Since Akeeney knew he had not
followed procedure properly he tore up the CC and instead wrote a DR and
shipped Mechael out. Once again not following procedure.
Mechael placed a formal request not
to be sent back to Gadsden
because she feared retribution. Her request was denied stating that there was
no record of any problems ever occurring at Gadsden. How can that be? We have since
contacted the records department at DOC, the Privatization Commission, and a
slew of others regarding this matter. Finally State investigators came in and
interviewed Mechael regarding Gadsden, what was done to her, and the illegal things
she had witnessed while there. Hopefully we will see some arrests at Gadsden in the near
future.
Mechael was found guilty of lying to
staff and received 90 days in confinement and lost 102 days of gaintime. She
filed a grievance at the institution and to DOC and both were denied. It amazes
us that she was punished due to the incompetence of employees of Suncoast.
Mechael has Lupus and all of this has taken such a toll on her physically and
Mentally. It just makes us sick to watch her suffer all due to Judge Ficarrotta,
the States Attorney, and Daniel Karpy. After much complaining at all levels of
DOC, contacting our congressional delegates, and all the way to the Governors
office the DR was finally overturned. For that we are very thankful but what
now does Mechael get for her having to suffer 90 days in confinement with no
contact with her family?
Well our nightmare continues but we
will not give up the fight! Any information or help would be appreciated and
welcomed. Mechael only has a few months left but she has already endured and
suffered more than she ever should have and her children have suffered even
more. Mechael can receive mail at:
Mechael
Miller 518869/B2
Lowell C.I.
11120 N.W. Gainesville Rd.
Ocala Florida 34482
We pray that one day the legislature
of our wonderful state of Florida will take another look at the sentencing
guidelines they enacted and make the changes necessary to keep unjust
sentences, like Judge Ficarrotta’s, from happening to other victims of our
legal system. God bless.
Geoffrey
Holdermiller
|
