Judge’s With To Much Power, Judge Ficarrotta, Failed By Our System

Judge’s With To Much Power, Judge Ficarrotta, Failed By Our System

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 unbelievable yet 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 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 lyed and the States Attorney Nolle Prosse to all charges except one, a single grand theft 3 rd degree over just one of the original 60 checks in question. I believe they held on to that single charge to save face. Mechael had been threatened by her former employer and pled out to probation in fear. Her probation officer turned out to be an officer whom she had dealt with at our business and due to the officers disrespectful behavior Mechael demanded she leave our office which made the officer very angry. Due to the prior dispute this officer disliked Mechael and caused her to violate her probation and wrote a report full of lies and even included ex parte information which made Mechael look like a terrible person. This information 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 is. 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, 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 Judge Ficarrotta. Mechael told him to accept the plea because she new she would qualify for house arrest and would never survive the probation officer 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 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, less than half 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 12% 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 denied 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 she has always been the person that everyone runs to for help and or assistance. 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 to this day due to an incident that occurred while she was in school. It took a dozen grievances filed to 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 in order for her to come back to work for me. I have known Mechael for fifteen years. I married her and took custody of her children to keep them from foster care. She was later removed from her job and accused of lying 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 her employer. 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. 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 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 at Lowell. 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. 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 and the Privatization Commission to assist in locating those records. If all else fails we will have to file suit to keep her from being taken back to Gadsden and having her put in harms way.

Well our nightmare continues but we will not give up the fight! Any information or help would be appreciated and welcomed. Mechael can receive mail at:

Mechael Miller 518869

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