John Petrelli, CPCU, AIC, ARM DATE

37 Pages·2013·0.22 MB·English

OFFICE of PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
JOHN L. PETRELLI, MANAGER
109 E. Church Street, Suite 200, Orlando, Florida 32801
[phone] ▪ FAX [phone]

TO: The Honorable Teresa Jacobs, Orange County Mayor

FROM: John Petrelli, CPCU, AIC, ARM

DATE: April 10, 2013

SUBJECT: Home Confinement/Bessman Okafor Investigation

Investigation Objectives:
Orange County Professional Standards completed an investigation of the Bessman Okafor
case from a policy and procedural standpoint. The investigator was specifically instructed to
conduct comprehensive Recorded Statements with the following Orange County personnel:
Linda Weinberg (Deputy County Administrator), Michael Tidwell (Chief-Corrections), Jill
Hobbs (Deputy Chief-Corrections), Cynthia Boyles (Department Manager-Corrections),
Juanita Beason (Administrative Supervisor-Corrections), Garnett Ahern (Unit Supervisor-
Home Confinement), Allen Moore (Public Information Officer-Corrections), Kenya Cox
(Senior Community Corrections Officer-Home Confinement), Margaret Hughes (Senior
Community Corrections Officer-Home Confinement), and Steve Pieper (Senior Community
Corrections Officer-Home Confinement). Mr. Pieper was not available due to an extended,
preplanned, out of state, leave of absence and his statement was not obtained. Please see
attached organizational chart.

The following information represents the findings of this investigation.

Service Dates:
February 26, 2013: Review case file, SOPs, email to Professional Standards re: request
additional information, prepare interview questionnaire for SCCO Recorded Statements.
February 27, 2013: Recorded Statement obtained from Senior Community Corrections
Officer Margaret Hughes.
February 28, 2013: Prepare interview questionnaire for Unit Supervisor Dorothy Garnett
Ahern.
March 01, 2013: Recorded Statements obtained from Unit Supervisor Dorothy Garnett
Ahern and Senior Community Corrections Officer Kenya Cox.
March 05, 2013: Recorded Statements obtained from Administrative Supervisor Juanita
Beason. Supplemental non-recorded statement obtained from Dorothy Garnett Ahern.
Prepare interview questionnaires for Administrative Supervisor Juanita Beason and Division
Manager Cynthia Boyles.
March 06, 2013: Recorded Statements obtained from Division Manager Cynthia Boyles and
Public Information Office Allen Moore.
March 07, 2013: Prepare interview questionnaires for Chief Michael Tidwell and Deputy
Chief Gillian Hobbs.
March 08, 2013: Recorded Statements obtained from Chief Michael Tidwell and Deputy
Chief Gillian Hobbs. Supplemental non-recorded statements obtained from Juanita Beason
and Cynthia Boyles.
March 11, 2013: Recorded Statement obtained from Deputy County Administrator Linda
Weinberg.
March 11, 2013 thru March 27, 2013: Preparation of draft report & supplemental
documentations due 03/18/2013. Supplemental non-recorded statement obtained from
Margaret Hughes (03/15/2013).
Introduction: The Concept of Home Confinement
The practice of confining a person to a specific residence by Court order is commonly known
as Home Confinement. However, the concept is also known by other names. In fact, the
website Wikipedia utilizes the terms House Arrest, Home Confinement and Home Detention
interchangeably. For the purpose of this report, the term Home Confinement will be utilized,
as it is the name of the program currently in existence in Orange County.

Accepted at face value, the term Home Confinement can be confusing and misleading,
primarily because the perception of what it is differs from how it is implemented in practice.
In the United States, Home Confinement is primarily utilized for both sentenced offenders
and pre-sentenced defendants as an alternative to incarceration. It is a viable option for
states and municipalities searching for cost-effective alternatives to incarceration in
correctional facilities. Clearly, Home Confinement offers significantly greater privileges to
defendants/offenders than incarceration.

As noted above, contrary to public perception, those assigned to Home Confinement are
rarely confined to their residences 24 hours a day. Eligible defendants/offenders are, in fact,
allowed to leave their residences for specifically approved activities. These can include
work, employment searches, and attending school, religious services, medical and legal
appointments, and completing household errands, such as food shopping. A predetermined
amount of time is allotted for each activity outside of the defendant’s/offender’s residence.

Home Confinement can be enforced via electronic monitoring (EM) equipment, usually
consisting of a base unit/handset and an ankle monitor/bracelet, which utilize Radio
Frequency Identification (RFID/RF) or Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to
monitor participants. The equipment sends signals to a monitoring service, which
documents the data. If a defendant/offender ventures too far from his/her base unit, a
violation is documented. Often this results in an alert being sent to the
defendant’s/offender’s Probation or Home Confinement officer. The technology for RFID/RF
can frequently be interrupted due to interference. Interference can be caused by physical
obstacles like a blanket or walls or due to other diffusing elements like the water from a
shower.

Additionally, Probation/Home Confinement officers conduct field supervision visits to check
on defendant/offender compliance status, as well as their assigned monitoring equipment. In
combination with field visits, defendants/offenders are usually required to report for office
visits. At these appointments, a defendant’s/offender’s assigned officer performs a variety of
duties which can include: a review of his/her terms of supervision, inputting approved
activities for which the participant is permitted to leave his/her residence, discussing
upcoming court dates or special conditions assigned by the Court, reviewing the
defendant’s/offender’s electronic monitoring reports for potential violations, conducting a
drug screen as applicable, and documenting any areas of concern regarding the
defendant/offender.

Defendants/offenders who violate the terms of Home Confinement can be revoked from the
program, participation in which is considered a privilege. The Probation or Home
Confinement officer completes a recommendation for revocation which documents the
violations that have been committed. A judge must approve the request for revocation.

Overview: Home Confinement in Orange County
In Orange County, Home Confinement is a function of the Community Surveillance Unit.
There are extensive Standard Operating Procedures that govern and dictate the operation
of the program. At its core, it is a community-based program that allows
defendants/offenders (inclusively referred to as “Clients”) to remain at home with their
2
families while allowing them the opportunity to be a productive member of society in lieu of
being incarcerated.

Clients are scheduled specific increments of time each week to work and/or attend school,
as well as personal time to attend religious services, complete errands, etc. Clients are
required to provide documentation of these activities to their supervising officers. Home
Confinement officers assign a specific amount of time for Clients to travel to/from and
complete these activities. Travel time allotted to Clients is to be based on objective
mileage/time estimates obtained via websites such as MapQuest and Google Maps. In
cases where the Client must utilize public transportation, travel time allotted is to be based
on documented bus schedules.

The Court places clients on Home Confinement. Pretrial Release (PTR) performs the first
component of their release from jail. PTR reviews the Client’s file and completes initial
paperwork that includes the Court Order or Administrative Order, Charging Affidavit(s)
and/or Warrant Arrest Affidavit, Tiburon warrants check, Release of Information, Home
Confinement Interview, and the Conditions of the Home Confinement Program forms.

A Risk Assessment determination is also completed. Per the Risk Assessment Score they
are assigned, Clients are designated as meeting the criteria for Level (1), Level (2), or Level
(3) Risk Levels. Level (1) Clients are considered to be the highest risk and are monitored
most closely. Level (3) Clients are considered to be the lowest risk and are monitored less
frequently. Risk Assessment Scores and degree of Client supervision are as follow:

 Level 1 (Risk Scores High and Above Average) – Clients will receive, at a minimum,
one office contact per week and one field contact per week.
 Level 2 (Risk Scores Average) – Clients will receive, at a minimum, one office
contact per week and one field contact every two weeks.
 Level 3 (Risk Scores Below Average and Low) – Clients will receive, at a minimum,
one office contact per month and one field contact per month.

Clients are required to sign the Acknowledgement of Receipt for the Community
Surveillance Program Offender Handbook and Consent for Urinalysis form at initial
processing.

Additionally, Acknowledgement of Receipt forms for the electronic monitoring equipment
that is issued to Clients are signed. Electronic monitoring (EM) equipment in Orange County
is generally comprised of a base unit and ankle transmitter. The equipment utilizes radio
frequency identification (RFID/RF) technology to monitor Clients. The equipment sends
signals to a monitoring service that documents the data. Orange County also has a limited
number of mini tracking devices (MTDs), which utilize Global Positioning System (GPS)
technology to monitor Clients. MTDs provide real-time data and give information on location
in real-time. Exclusionary zones can be programmed in to the MTD. MTDs are most often
utilized with Clients who do not have a landline and in cases where use of the MTD is Court-
ordered. Regardless of the electronic monitoring equipment used, if a defendant/offender
ventures too far from his/her base unit, a violation is documented in the EM database.

Clients are issued a temporary Schedule that includes an appointment for their initial
meeting with their Case Manager.

At a Client’s initial meeting with his/her Case Manager, a comprehensive orientation is
conducted to address the following:
 Review of the Client’s conditions of Home Confinement per Court order
 Review importance of compliance with conditions of the program
 Development of a Case Activity/Supervision Plan for Client
 Establish an approved Schedule for Client to include office visits
3
 Review Cost of Supervision (COS) & drug testing fees
 Obtain verification of employment (if applicable)
 Assist unemployed Clients to find employment (Job Alliance program). Clients are
required to keep a Job Search Log to be provided at office visits.
 Complete drug testing

The duties of a Senior Community Corrections Officer - Case Manager - include but are not
limited to:
 Review & update status of Client cases
 Check Client alert/case status at the beginning of the shift & periodically throughout
the shift via use of electronic monitoring database, electronic monitoring daily activity
reports, email, text messages and voice mail
 Respond to alert notifications by no later than the end of the shift
 Review a Client’s Case Activity/Supervision Plan
 Develop approved Schedules for Clients
 Enter approved Schedule in to electronic monitoring website
 Address temporary or permanent approved Schedule changes – obtain
documentation as needed for Schedule
 Collect Cost of Supervision (COS)
 Collect Job Search Logs from Clients (if applicable)
 Document Client progress, concerns, alerts
 Document Client contact and case information in the Automated Probation System
(APS)
 Retain documentation in Client files & the Automated Probation System (APS)
 Attempt to resolve Client non-compliance
 Schedule & conduct Administrative Hearings (as applicable)
 Prepare & process Client revocation reports (as applicable)
 Attend Court hearings when requested
 Process case closures
 Complete case closure narrative report in APS (as applicable)
 Jointly supervise Clients with a Field Officer

The duties of a Senior Community Corrections Officer - Field Officer - include but are not
limited to:
 Establish a weekly itinerary of in-person contacts of all Clients on their assigned
caseload
 Check Client alert status at the beginning of the shift via use of electronic monitoring
database, electronic monitoring daily activity reports, email, text messages and voice
mail
 Respond to alert notifications by no later than the end of the shift
 Ensure ongoing supervision of Clients via in-person field contact
 Inspect transmitter & base unit for signs of tampering
 Observe Client’s environment
 Determine possible program violations
 Deliver written notice for Client to appear at Administrative Hearings (as applicable)
 Document Client progress, concerns, alerts
 Document Client contact and case information in the Automated Probation System
(APS)
 Verify employment address & work schedule (if applicable)
 Coordinate the arrest of Clients with active warrants with law enforcement
 Forward revocation information to Case Manager (as applicable)
 Recover electronic monitoring equipment from released, revoked or absconded
Clients within two business days. Document in APS
 Assist w/Client program intake as needed
4
 Respond to and investigate case issues; consult with Case Managers & fellow Field
Officers
 Prepare Incident Reports for all formal discipline, unusual & emergency situations

Clients are aware of the consequences for misconduct while in the Home Confinement
program. Examples of non-compliance include but are not limited to:
 Minor, excessive or serious curfew violations
 Excessive missed appointments
 New offense
 Refusal to attend an Administrative Hearing
 Non-payment of Cost of Supervision and drug screening fees
 Positive drug/alcohol screen(s)
 Victim contact
 Absconding
 Failure to maintain a stable residence
 Possession of a firearm or deadly weapon
 Failure to comply with Court-ordered conditions
 Telephone equipment/power issues

Case Managers and Field Officers attempt to resolve non-compliance issues with the Client.
Some non-compliance issues do not require revocation and can attempt to be resolved via
progressive discipline including counseling, admonishment, an intensified level of
supervision and/or deletion or modification of approved Schedules. More serious non-
compliance issues are considered by other Community Corrections Officers and/or Unit
Supervisors via an Administrative Hearing.

An Administrative Hearing can be scheduled in these cases if a Client cannot be brought
back in to compliance via progressive discipline. An Administrative Hearing affords a Client
the opportunity to respond to alleged or documented violations of program requirements.
The Administrative Board determines whether the Client should be recommended for
revocation or given further opportunity to comply with the terms of the program. An
immediate revocation is filed in certain instances, with no opportunity for an Administrative
Hearing. These include but are not limited to new offenses, victim contact, or possession of
a firearm or deadly weapon. A judge must approve recommendations for revocation.

A Client’s participation in Home Confinement is terminated upon a Client’s revocation from
the program, return to jail or authorized termination from the program.

Policy/Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) Governing Home Confinement in
Orange County:
The Home Confinement program is governed by Policy and Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs) developed per the following:

 Florida Statutes 812.014(1)(2) and Chapter 119 “Sunshine Law”
 Orange County Ninth Judicial Circuit Admin Order 07-93-582, 07-93-58S
 Orange County Board of County Commissioners Administrative Orders: 07-93-58-02,
07-93-58-4
 Orange County Corrections Department Administrative Orders: HR.200, IO-200,
AM.004, IS.602, IS.401
 Orange County Community Corrections Division Standard Operating Procedures:
AM.004-001, AM.004-003, AM.004-009, AM.004-029, AM.004-014, AM.004-015,
AM.004-016, AM.004-042
 American Correctional Association (ACA) Standards: 1-EM-1A-13, 1-EM-1E-01, 1-
EM-1E-02, 1-EM-1E-03, 1-EM-3C-01, 1-EM-3C-02, 1-EM-3C-03, 1-EM-3C-04, 1-
EM-3C-05, 1EM-4A-01, 1-EM-4A-02, 1-EM-4A-03, 1-EM-4A-04, 1-EM-4A-06, 1-EM-
5
4A-07, 1-EM-4A-08, 1-EM-4A-09, 1-EM-4A-10, 1-EM-4B-01, 1-EM-4B-02, 1-EM-4B-
03, 1-EM-4B-04, 1-EM-4B-05, 1-EM-4B-06, 1-EM-3A-04, 1-EM-3A-05, 1-EM-3B-04,
1-EM-3A-06, 1-EM-3B-07, 1-EM-3A-03, 1-EM-3A-04, 1-EM-1A-03, 1-EM-3A-01, 1-
EM-4C-01, 1-EM-4C-02
 Florida Corrections Accreditation Commission Standards: 2.08, 5.04, 5.05, 5.06,
5.07, 5.08, 5.09, 5.12.M

For the purpose of this report, the following Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are
referenced and applied as applicable - (Please note that these were the SOPs in effect
during the time Bessman Okafor was on Home Confinement):

CSU-AM.004-001 Program Intake (Eff. Date 10/21/2011)
CSU-AM.004-003 Equipment Inventory, Installation, Maintenance & Recovery
(08/20/2011)
CSU-AM.004-005 Client Schedules (Eff. Date 08/20/2011)
CSU-AM.004-009 Client Supervision (Eff. Date 08/20/2011)
CSU-AM.004-010 Case Manager Responsibilities (Eff. Date 03/02/2011)
CSU-AM.004-011 Field Supervision (Eff. Date 11/30/2011)
CSU-AM.004-015 Revocations (Eff. Date 10/27/2011)
CSU-AM.004-016 Case Closures (Eff. Date 08/20/2011)
CSU-AM.004-020 Offender Discipline (Eff. Date 03/02/2011)

Additionally, the Orange County Corrections Department Code of Conduct Policy HR.200
is also applied.

Overview of Incident Prompting this Investigation:
During the early morning of September 10, 2012, the Ocoee Police Department received a
911 call from civilian Amy Scott, who advised that a gunshot victim was at her address (648
Butterfly Creek, Ocoee, Florida) asking for police assistance. Officers from the Ocoee Police
Department were dispatched to the address where they met with two victims, Brienna
Campos and her brother, Remington Campos. The Campos siblings informed officers that
unknown Black males had forced their way in to the Campos residence located at 503
Bernadino Drive, Ocoee, Florida 34761 and shot them, as well as their roommate (Alex
Zaldivar), whom they presumed was deceased inside the home. The Campos siblings were
then transported to Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC) for treatment.

Police officers reported to 503 Bernadino Drive where they located a deceased male inside
the residence whose identity was verified as Alex Zaldivar.

Members of the Orlando and Ocoee Police Departments under the jurisdiction of the Joint
Homicide Investigation Team (JHIT) investigated the homicide.

Early in the investigation of the September 10, 2012 incident, Ocoee PD informed Orlando
PD detectives that the same victims were also victims of a previous Armed Home Invasion
Robbery at the same residence on May 09, 2012 (Ocoee PD case #2012-41012). The
05/09/2012 home invasion involved a total of four victims: Brandon Campos, Will Herrington,
Brienna Campos and Alex Zaldivar. The investigation of the May 09, 2012 home invasion
had resulted in the arrests of Bessman Okafor and Nolan Bernard, who were booked in to
the Orange County Jail on the night of 05/09/2012.

Detectives learned that on June 11, 2012, the State Attorney’s Office (SAO) had filed 14
felony charges against Mr. Okafor and Mr. Bernard in the 05/09/2012 matter. Both
defendants were assigned a $66,000.00 bond. Both defendants were authorized to
participate in the Home Confinement program if the bond requirement was met, despite
arguments by the State Attorney. The State Attorney argued during the bond hearing that
6
neither of the defendants should be allowed Home Confinement due to the nature of the
charged offenses. Mr. Bernard was unable to post bond and remained incarcerated.

Mr. Okafor was able to post bond (Executive Bail Bonds). On June 23, 2012, Mr. Okafor
completed and signed the Home Confinement Interview during which he provided the
address at which he would be residing (1241 St. James Road), as well as a landline
telephone number (407.601.2470) and alternate telephone number (321.946.8998). Mr.
Okafor also reviewed and signed the Conditions of the Home Confinement Program and
was released from the Orange County Jail that night.

Records show that on the following day (June 24, 2012), Mr. Okafor reported to Orange
County Community Corrections’ Home Confinement program, as per condition of his
release. He was issued the Community Surveillance Program Offender Handbook and
signed for receipt of such. He also signed the Consent for Urinalysis and was issued
electronic monitoring equipment consisting of a base unit and transmitter for which he
signed the Acknowledgement of Receipt of Equipment & Agreement to Return or Pay for
Lost/Damaged Equipment form.

Mr. Okafor returned to Community Corrections Home Confinement on June 25, 2012, at
which time he met with Case Manager Margaret (Meg) Hughes. She provided him with a
Case Activity/Supervision Plan and his first Weekly Schedule form.

On August 23, 2012, the victims of the May 09, 2012 home invasion (Brandon Campos, Will
Herrington, Brienna Campos and Alex Zaldivar) provided depositions to the State Attorney’s
Office and the trial in the matter was scheduled for September 11, 2012. All four victims
were scheduled to testify at trial.

Statements from the surviving victims of the September 10, 2012 home invasion and murder
confirmed that there was a connection between the 05/09/2012 home invasion and the
deadly events of 09/10/2012.

Detectives were able to obtain sworn statements from surviving victims Brienna Campos
and Remington Campos at ORMC on September 10, 2012. They each described the events
of the early morning. Remington Campos recalled how one of the suspects referenced the
May 2012 home invasion asking, “Aren’t you the guys who got robbed before?” Brienna
Campos recalled that the suspects asked about whether “the other two kids (Brandon
Campos and Will Herrington) from the [May, 2012] robbery were home.” (Brandon Campos
and Will Herrington were both scheduled to testify at the 09/11/2012 trial.) The suspects’
behavior indicated that they recognized Brienna Campos and Alex Zaldivar from the May,
2012 home invasion and could see that the other two victims of the May, 2012 home
invasion were not at home. The suspects asked repeatedly about them and wanted to know
when Brandon Campos and Mr. Herrington would return.

Brienna Campos also stated that during June 2012, “the mother of one of the robbers” who
identified herself as “Cathy” had come to the 503 Bernadino address twice to speak with
her. Ms. Campos stated that the nature of the visits was an effort to bribe her with cars/cash
if she would agree to drop the charges related to the May 2012 home invasion. Ms. Campos
stated that she declined “Cathy’s” bribe both times and reported the woman’s second visit to
her residence to the Ocoee Police Department. Detectives quickly determined that Catalina
Ruffin-Sinclair is Bessman Okafor’s mother. A photo line-up was prepared and showed to
Brienna Campos on 09/10/2012. Ms. Campos immediately identified Catalina Ruffin-Sinclair
as the woman who had twice attempted to bribe her to drop the charges against her son for
monetary compensation.

Detectives acquired Bessman Okafor’s Home Confinement records from his Case Manager
Margaret (Meg) Hughes, Senior Community Corrections Officer, on September 10, 2012. In
7
addition to the contact information noted earlier in this report, Ms. Hughes’ records also
indicated a cellular contact phone number for Mr. Okafor of 407.221.7378. The detectives
verified that the telephone number matched a cell phone discovered at the scene of the
murder. Ms. Hughes confirmed that she had often contacted Mr. Okafor at the 407.221.7378
number, including 09/10/2012, the same day as the murder. On that date she had
telephoned him to request he report to her office so that she could address a Polk County
warrant for his arrest with him.

Detectives reviewed Mr. Okafor’s Home Confinement records. These included his 3M
Electronic Monitoring Offender Violation Summary Report. The 3M report documented that
Mr. Okafor had three curfew violations on September 10, 2012. One of the curfew violations
on that date was for a 66-minute period from 04:40 to 05:46 hours, which corresponded
directly to the time of the murder of Alex Zaldivar. When Ms. Hughes was questioned about
the timeframe she verified that it constituted a curfew violation because Mr. Okafor was
required to be at home during that time. The equipment also logged a curfew violation from
14:48 to 16:53, which correlated to the timeframe Ms. Hughes had requested Mr. Okafor
report to the office for an unscheduled visit to discuss his Polk County warrant. It was later
verified that Mr. Okafor had reported to the office during these times but left before meeting
with Ms. Hughes. All of the data helped detectives to confirm that Mr. Okafor’s monitoring
equipment had been working properly throughout the day of the murder.

On the night of September 10, 2012, Bessman Okafor was taken in to custody and
transported to Orlando Police Headquarters’ Criminal Investigations Division. Mr. Okafor’s
interview with police began at approximately 01:23 hours on September 11, 2012. He was
read his rights and agreed to speak with detectives. Mr. Okafor denied leaving his residence
during the time of the murder and denied any affiliation or involvement with the murder.

As the investigation continued, additional evidence including phone and cell tower records,
security camera footage and red light camera footage as described in the Arrest Affidavit
further supported detectives’ hypothesis that Bessman Okafor participated in the murder of
Alex Zaldivar on the morning of September 10, 2012. The Arrest Affidavit concludes, “The
evidence and testimony obtained in this investigation shows [that] the clear motive for this
crime was to eliminate the witnesses due to testify against Okafor and Bernard. The
evidence and testimony obtained prove that Bessman Okafor was not only responsible for
the planning and execution, but was also present at the murder of Alex Zaldivar.”

8
Criminal History/Arrest Information

10/22/2000- Petit theft/false ID given to Law Enforcement

11/26/2003- Burglary, Nolle Prossed

12/16/2003- Aggravated assault, downgraded to carrying a concealed weapon

12/28/2003- Criminal mischief

04/03/2004- Larceny, petit theft

01/19/2005- Aggravated assault with weapon, firing weapon, weapon offense

03/24/2005- Larceny petit theft, nolle prossed

09/07/2005- Robbery, battery, larceny

09/12/2005- Aggravated assault with a weapon

08/10/2006- Burglary, larceny criminal mischief property damage

08/26/2006- Probation violation

01/29/2007- Aggravated assault

03/26/2010- Indecent exposure

10/20/2010- Registered as a convicted felon

12/20/2011- Robbery, charges dropped

03/31/2012- Possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, Charges dropped

03/31/2012- Out of county warrant

05/09/2012- 4 counts of kidnapping, robbery, home invasion with a firearm, 5 counts of
larceny, burglary

09/11/2012- Out of county warrant, 4 counts of parole violations, 1 count of homicide.

Confirmed Gang member of the “Cut Throat Committee”

9
Dates of Incarceration

Booking and release dates Orange County Correction

Booked Released
11-26-2003 11-27-2003
12-17-2003 12-19-2003
12-28-2003 2-4-2004
4-3-2004 4-21-2004
1-19-2005 1-19-2005
3-25-2005 3-26-2005
9-7-2005 9-8-2005
9-12-2005 5-2-2006
8-10-2006 8-11-2006
8-26-2006 12-4-2006
1-29-2007 2-5-2007
12-20-2011 1-11-2012
3-31-2012 3-31-2012
5-9-2012 6-24-2012
9-11-2012 currently incarcerated

State of Florida Department of Corrections Incarceration Information
2-5-2007 Received into the State Department of Corrections
Orange County charge-
Reception and Medical Center Institution

3-2-2007 Transferred to Baker Correctional Institution

3-27-2007 Transferred to Baker Correctional Work Camp

4-3-2007 Transferred to Baker Correctional Institution

8-6-2007 Transferred to Charlotte Correctional Institution

12-19-2007 Transferred to Santa Rosa Correctional instiution

3-26-2010 Out to Court Santa Rosa Jail (Pensacola)

3-26-2010 Returned back to State DOC – Santa Rosa Correctional

5-3-2010 Transferred to Florida State Prison

10-18-2010 Released from the Florida State Prison (State Department of Corrections)

10