Florida Bar v. Merckle

498 So. 2d 1242, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 612, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2914
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 26, 1986
DocketNo. 66641
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 498 So. 2d 1242 (Florida Bar v. Merckle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Florida Bar v. Merckle, 498 So. 2d 1242, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 612, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2914 (Fla. 1986).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary proceeding is before us upon the complaint of The Florida Bar and the report of the referee. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. Neither party seeks review of the referee’s report. We therefore adopt the referee’s findings of fact and approve the recommended discipline of disbarment pursuant to Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11.-09(3)(f). We set forth the referee’s report in its entirety in order that others may be deterred from similar unethical conduct.

REPORT OF REFEREE

A. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS: The undersigned was appointed as Referee to conduct disciplinary proceedings according to Article XI of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar. Hearings were held on November 25, 1985 and on April 28, 1986. The Pleadings, Notice, Motions, Orders, Transcripts and Exhibits, all of which constitute the record1 in this case, are forwarded.

The following attorneys appeared as Counsel for the parties:

For The Florida Bar: Diane Victor Kuen-zel and Thomas J. Roehn
For the Respondent: Frank Ragano

B. FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO EACH ITEM OF MISCONDUCT OF WHICH THE RESPONDENT IS CHARGED: After considering all the pleadings and evidence before me, pertinent portions of which are commented upon below, I find:

AS TO COUNT I

1. Respondent is a member of The Florida Bar subject to the jurisdiction and disciplinary rules of the Supreme Court of Florida.

2. From January 1,1982, until his resignation from the judiciary on August 3, 1983, Respondent served as Chief Judge of five judges serving in the Criminal Division for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsbor-ough County.

3. One of the five judges in Respondent’s division, Judge Richard Leon, was removed as a circuit court judge by the Supreme Court on October 20, 1983 and temporarily suspended from The Florida Bar on January 11,1984, following an adjudication of guilt on one count of perjury and two counts of official misconduct for his participation in matters connected to the allegations contained herein.

4. In 1980, Alisa Dean Avery was charged with trafficking in cocaine, possession of pyrroledine and delivery and possession of cocaine by the State Attorney in Hillsborough County in Case Numbers 80-9781 and 81-3103, State v. Alisa Dean [1243]*1243Avery. The trafficking charge carried a three year minimum mandatory sentence.

5. Alisa Dean Avery’s cases were assigned to Respondent in his capacity as circuit court judge.

6. At some point in 1982, Respondent held several improper ex -parte communications with Judge Richard Leon concerning the disposition of Miss Avery’s case.

7. Respondent knew that Circuit Court Judge Richard Leon was a friend of Mr. Avery, the Defendant’s father.

8. Respondent advised Judge Leon that Miss Avery should give the state “substantial assistance” by making charges against other individuals and thereby obtain from the State Attorney a dismissal of the trafficking charge which required a three year minimum mandatory sentence.

9. Respondent further advised Judge Leon that if the trafficking charge was dropped, the sentence would then be within the discretion of the judge. Respondent stated to Judge Leon that it was his practice to give probation to first offenders in drug cases.

10. On October 11, 1982, a plea agreement was entered into by Cass Castillo of the State Attorney’s Office and Mr. Raymond LaPorte, the attorney representing Alisa Avery. As a result of the plea, the trafficking charge was dismissed against Miss Avery.

11. In return, Miss Avery pled guilty to one count of possession of pyrroledine and one count of delivery and possession of cocaine.

12. As a result of the plea, it was agreed that Miss Avery would serve three years in prison.

13. On October 11, 1982, Counsel for Miss Avery and Mr. Castillo appeared before Respondent for a hearing on the plea agreement.

14. Respondent accepted the plea agreement and was prepared to sentence Miss Avery to the agreed upon three years in prison. However, at Mr. LaPorte’s request, the sentencing was deferred until November 19, 1982, following the end of Miss Avery’s college term.

15. On November 19, 1982, Mr. La-Porte, Mr. Castillo and Miss Avery again appeared before Respondent for sentencing. Respondent sentenced Miss Avery to three years in prison, after which Respondent proceeded to hear other .cases docketed for the day.

16. Following the sentencing, Miss Avery’s father, who had been present at the hearing, asked for directions to Judge Leon’s chambers.

17. Thereafter, Judge Leon and Mr. Avery were observed in conversation outside the door of Judge Leon’s chambers. Immediately thereafter, Judge Leon appeared at the door of Respondent’s chambers and beckoned Respondent out of the room.

18. They stepped into the back room of Respondent’s chambers, at which time Judge Leon said, “I thought you said somebody would get probation if the trafficking charge was dropped. Why have you given Miss Avery three years?”

19. Respondent replied, “I will call her back and change it.”

20. Respondent then summoned Miss Avery and her attorney into his chambers and stated to Assistant State Attorney Michael Benito, who was present on behalf of Cass Castillo, that he had contacted Assistant State Attorney Norman Cannella. Respondent assured Mr. Benito that Mr. Can-nella had agreed to a change of sentence on behalf of the State.

21. Respondent then changed Miss Avery’s sentence from three years in prison to five years probation and a fine of $5,000 in costs.

22. At no time did the Respondent contact Mr. Cannella to inquire about a change of sentence for Alisa Avery.

23. Respondent altered Miss Avery’s sentence outside of the presence and knowledge of the State Attorney assigned to the case and without any factual showing or representation as to why the change was made.

[1244]*124424. The alteration of sentence occurred after an improper ex parte conversation with Judge Leon, who came to Respondent's chambers to speak on Miss Avery’s behalf.

25. At the time Respondent altered Miss Avery’s sentence, he knew or should have known that the alteration was contrary to a prior plea negotiation approved by the State Attorney’s Office.

AS TO COUNT II

26. Paragraphs 1 through 25 are incorporated by reference.

27. On February 27, 1983, the Tampa Tribune reported the change of sentence and that Miss Avery was a friend of Judge Richard Leon.

28. Following the release of the story, Judges Leon and Merckle agreed that in the event of any inquiries, they would each lie and state that they had never discussed Alice [sic] Avery’s case with one another.

29. On March 1, 1983, Thomas MacDonald of the Judicial Qualifications Commission was assigned to investigate the matters raised in the newspaper reports.

30. On March 15,1983, Respondent contacted Mr. MacDonald and arranged for an interview to discuss the matter.

31. On the following day, during the interview, Respondent, knowing that Mr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

The Florida Bar v. Davis
657 So. 2d 1135 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Florida Bar v. Leon
510 So. 2d 873 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
498 So. 2d 1242, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 612, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-bar-v-merckle-fla-1986.