Board of Regents v. Videon, W--441
| Decision Date | 15 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. W--441,W--441 |
| Citation | 313 So.2d 433 |
| Parties | BOARD OF REGENTS of the State of Florida, a body corporate for and on behalf of the University of Florida, Appellant, v. Philip J. VIDEON and Career Service Commission, etc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas S. Biggs, Jr., and Judith A. Brechner, Gainsville, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Stephen F. Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Philip A. Delaney, for appellees.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of the Career Service Commission of the State of Florida. Respondent, Philip J. Videon, was discharged from his employment by the University of Florida for misappropriation of University property (700 pounds of used copper wire). He appealed his dismissal to respondent, the Career Service Commission, and after a full hearing, the Commission reduced the discipline to suspension without pay, finding that the 'agency failed to show by the greater weight of the evidence the appellant's specific criminal intent to wrongfully deprive the University of its property and . . . the Commission finds that the action is this instance was too severe, in the absence of criminal intent.' The Commission further found:
'The Appellant testified that Leslie F. Hopkins, a co-worker, told him several times that it was all right to take the wire because it was to be thrown away, and that he, Hopkins, had the authority, or at least the apparent authority, to make such representation.'
The Career Service Commission notes the testimony of eye witnesses to the taking, which indicates that the Appellant's actions were in the open, and did not evidence a covert act, perpetrated with a criminal intent.'
The Commission concluded:
'(1) The Appellant's act lacked criminal intent and was, instead, the result of incredibly poor judgment.
(2) The Appellant's error in judgment, however, and his failure to follow approved methods of obtaining surplus property does warrant disciplinary action.'
Petitioner contends that it is not necessary that it prove specific criminal intent to support dismissal of an employee for misappropriating University property; that the order of the Commission is not supported by competent substantial evidence.
§ 110.061, Florida Statutes, governs the procedure for disciplining employees who are under the State Career Service Commission. It provides as follows:
'(1) Any employee who has permanent status in the career service may only be terminated for cause by the agency or officer by whom he is employed.
(2)(a) The department shall establish rules and procedures for suspension, reduction in pay, transfer, layoff, demotion and dismissal of employees in the career service for cause and for the investigation and hearing of appeals by the career service commission on such actions.
(b) Written notice of such appeal shall be filed with the commission within twenty days from the date on which notice of suspension, reduction in pay, transfer, layoff, demotion or dismissal is mailed to the employee. All notices to the employee shall be in writing sent by certified mail with return receipt requested.
(c) The commission shall, within thirty days after hearing such appeal, make its finding and decision, copies of which shall be transmitted to the employee, the employing agency concerned, and the department.
(3) The career service commission may order the reinstatement of an employee, with or without back pay, which order shall be binding on the agency or officer concerned. The action of the commission shall be in writing and shall be served on the parties to such appeal either in person or by mail.
(4) The exercise by the career service commission of the powers, duties, and functions prescribed by this section shall be reviewable only by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bartlett v. State
...intent in part because the defendant "believed in good faith that she had a right to the [property]"); see also Board of Regents v. Videon, 313 So.2d 433, 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). At the conclusion of the state's case here, the defense moved for judgment of acquittal on grounds the state ha......
-
Rodriguez v. State, 79-666
...Tedder v. State, 73 Fla. 861, 75 So. 783 (1917); Uber v. State, 382 So.2d 1321, 1322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Board of Regents v. Videon, 313 So.2d 433, 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). 3 The state contends that the defendants may not raise the issue because counsel did not formally object to the court......
-
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services v. Edwards
...substantial evidence. State, Department of General Services v. English, 534 So.2d 726, 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Board of Regents v. Videon, 313 So.2d 433, 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). The first issue raised by the Department was resolved by Edwards I. Nevertheless, the decision in Edwards I, re......
-
Jackson v. State, AZ-198
...of right to the proceeds of the Stout job, the state has failed to prove the requisite unlawful intent. See Board of Regents v. Videon, 313 So.2d 433, 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Regardless of the legal soundness of the "intent to steal" defense, and circumstances which would strongly indicate......