Preview
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDASTATE OF FLORIDA BOOKING NO. Ge 164 2 7°CASE NO.: \ yi LHIJ .v.] ” : OMESTICAtpiey Ladle eer{ ] DATING FILEDDEFENDANT ; !{ ] NON-DOMESTIC | ~FEB 10 2021ORDER OF NO CONTACT | clerk ofthe circuit cae 20 ||This “no contact order” is effective immediately and enforceable for the duration of the pretrial release or untilmodified by the Court. |. The Defendant is specifically ordered to have NO CONTACT and to not attempt to contact the followingperson(s) GS a ;a Vietim(s) 7 Met Ce 1 Hee[ ] Co-Defendant(s)[ ] Witness(es) DV Tha Nafeedane chall NAT CONTACT &2. The Detenaait sna NOT CONTACT oi atteipt tG Comtact Me abOVE-Tisied PETSOMS) Ltt THIS CASE 1S Closeéaor until further order of the Court, whichever occurs first.eee eeeaee erp eeeteeee cae SCANNED. For purposes of this Order, “no contact” means: + NO direct or indirect messages or communications by the Defendant.+ NO direct or indirect contact by a third person on behalf of the Defendant. This does not prohibit anattorney for the Defendant, consistent with Rules regulating The Florida Bar fronQ $n} yfnicating withany person protected by the no contact order for lawful purposes.* NO communication of any kind including telephone calls, messages on answering machines and voice orelectronic; all written forms of communication, including letters of apology; or any other means ofcommunication, including the delivery of gifts at any time, either at a residence, school, or workplace.¢ The Defendant is prohibited from being within 500 feet of the victim’s or other named person’s residence,even if the Defendant and the victim or other named person share the residence.: The Defendant is prohibited trom being wiihin 500 Teet or the victim’s or other named person's vehicie,place of employment, or a specified place frequented regularly by such person.* The Defendant is prohibited from the following addresses (victim’s home/job, if child involved schooladdress/aftercare center/address for extracurricular activities): fA xedeeacled “PRLOON Qrio 202)October 2015 Page | of 2 Form 31>L€(/lé/ a eaeZL a Lee4. The Defendant has been expressly advised that if the above-listed person(s) attempts to contact the Defendant,he/she must avoid any such contact and the Defendant has been further advised that he/she would be inviolation of this Order if the Defendant communicates with the above-listed person(s) even if contact isinitiated by the above-listed person(s).Cree S¥cfwn. Immediately surrender any firearms or ammunition to the custody of the sheriff. (within 24 hours ofrelease from custody) {possession of either may be a violation of Federal Statute 18 U.S.C, 922(g)(8)}6. Exceptions applies only if checked):£1 Tha Natande tha racida, wrhare tha ahaue_lictad narcan(e\ racidac far tha nurnaceL ] ine Deteiaant May returi to wie Wsiaence wiere Me avove=uSteG PerSonts; Fesiaes TOT Me purposeof removing the Defendant’s PERSONAL EFFECTS ONLY and then only in the presence of auniformed law enforcement officer and on ONE occasion only.{ ] Contact may be in writing.{ ] Contact may be by telephone.[ ] Contact may occur but only through a third party and only to facilitate visitation with the Defendant’sminor children.7. The Defendant has been expressly advised that violation of this Order will subject the Defendant to arrest andcommitment by the Court, plus, if applicable, bond forfeiture.I have read and do understand this Order and agree to obey it. I fully understand that ONLY A CRIMINALDIVISION JUDGE may modify this order. | understand therefore that the alleged victim in this case, the stateattorney, and any other attorney or person DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to modify ANY PORTION ofthis Order without APPROVAL BY THE JUDGE.| completely understand and agree that if I disobey this Order, the Judge may possibly revoke and forfeit anybond. and/or order my immediate incarceration.I understand that this Order supercedes any prior Order(s) relating to the above-listed person(s).,[OV 17)uv )DEFENDANTLODONE and ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida thisFEB Hl.day ofeeCIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT JUDGECopies Furnished To:State AttorneyPublic Defender/Defense AttorneyDefendantAlleged Victim (provided by State Attorney)October 2015 Page 2 of 2 Form 31
Related Contentin Palm Beach County
Case
DIAZ, YVONNE V CHECK FIVE LLC
Jul 12, 2024 |G. Joseph Curley |DISCRIMINATION EMPLOYMNT/OTHER |50-2024-CA-006512-XXXA-MB
Case
SCHWARTZ, JEFFREY V CASTLE KEY INDEMNITY COMPANY
Jul 10, 2024 |Jaimie R. Goodman |INSURANCE CLAIM |50-2024-CA-006629-XXXA-MB
Case
SHIRLEY, EKRON EARL V SHIRLEY, TANISHA SAPHFRONIA
Jul 15, 2024 |Cheryl A. Caracuzzo |DISSOLUTION |50-2024-DR-005950-XXXA-NB
Case
BURKES, CARLINA S V BROWN, ELJAJUAN RASHAAD SR
Jul 18, 2024 |Sara Alijewicz |PATERNITY |50-2024-DR-006076-XXXA-WB
Case
FRANCIS, BOYD V CRENSHAW, MARKWONDA
Jul 12, 2024 |Rosemarie Scher |PATERNITY |50-2024-DR-005928-XXXA-NB
Case
SMITH, WALTER L III V BENNETT, ARTAYLOR R
Jul 19, 2024 |Laura C. Burkhart |OTHER DOMESTIC RELATIONS |50-2024-DR-006090-XXXA-SB
Case
GILMOUR, ALISIA V VILLA, DR JOHN F
Jul 16, 2024 |Scott R. Kerner |OTHER CIRCUIT |50-2024-CA-006568-XXXA-MB
Case
BETHENCOURT, LISANDRA V ROSIER, MIRADIEU
Jul 12, 2024 |James W. Sherman |AUTO NEGLIGENCE |50-2024-CA-006528-XXXA-MB
Ruling
DOBBINS, et al. vs. CARE OPTIONS MANAGEMENT PLANSAND SUPPORT
Jul 21, 2024 |CVCV20-0194615
PLANSAND SUPPORTCase Number: CVCV20-0194615This matter is on calendar for review regarding trial re-setting. The parties have filed a Joint CaseManagement Statement which requests a continuance to explore informal resolution and a secondmediation. In light of the foregoing, this matter is continued to Monday, September 9, 2024, at9:00 a.m. in Department 64. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
The People of the State of California vs. $1000.00 U.S. Currency
Jul 16, 2024 |22CV-0199795
U.S. CURRENCYCase Number: 22CV-0199795This consolidated asset forfeiture matter is on calendar for review regarding status of criminalproceedings and amended petition. On June 10, 2024, the People advised the Court that Judgmentand Sentencing in the underlying criminal matter was set for June 13, 2024. No amended petitionhas been filed. No status report has been filed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendarto provide the Court with a status of the criminal proceeding and amended petition.
Ruling
In re: Claim of Lux Vending, LLC
Jul 17, 2024 |24CV01925
24CV01925 IN RE: CLAIM OF LUX VENDING, LLCEVENT: Motion for Return of PropertyThis matter has been reassigned and is continued to Monday, August 5, 2024 at 8:30a.m. to be heard by Judge Merrifield in Courtroom 3 at the North Butte CountyCourthouse in Chico. Counsel may appear by Court Call and shall provide notice.3|Page
Ruling
The People of the State of California vs. $1000.00 U.S. Currency
Jul 19, 2024 |22CV-0199795
U.S. CURRENCYCase Number: 22CV-0199795This consolidated asset forfeiture matter is on calendar for review regarding status of criminalproceedings and amended petition. On June 10, 2024, the People advised the Court that Judgmentand Sentencing in the underlying criminal matter was set for June 13, 2024. No amended petitionhas been filed. No status report has been filed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendarto provide the Court with a status of the criminal proceeding and amended petition.
Ruling
THE PEOPLE VS. $14, 240.00 U.S.CURRENCY
Jul 18, 2024 |CVPT21-0197475
THE PEOPLE VS. $14, 240.00 U.S. CURRENCYCase Number: CVPT21-0197475Tentative Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment: The People of the State of California movefor forfeiture of $11,440.00 US Currency pursuant to Health and Safety Code 11488.5(b)(1).Hearing on this Motion for Default Judgment was continued from April 15, 2024 to permit thePeople to cure the following defects: 1) improper proof of service, 2) improperly verifieddeclaration. Both defects have been cured.Merits: Currency that is “furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for acontrolled substance” or used or intended to be used to facilitate particular provisions of the Healthand Safety Code are subject to seizure and forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11470. Thejudicial and/or administrative procedure for forfeiture is laid out generally in Health and SafetyCode §§ 11488.4 and 11488.5. For a judicial forfeiture the District Attorney’s Office (or otheragency) is required to file a Petition for Forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(a). ThePetition for Forfeiture must be served on the individuals from whom the property was seized.Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(c). This service is in addition to the service of a notice at thetime of the seizure. Id. Notices of forfeiture must also be published for three consecutive weeksin a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the subject property was seized. Healthand Safety Code § 11488.4(e). The notice must contain a description of the property, the appraisedvalue of the property, the date and place of seizure or location of any property not seized butsubject to forfeiture, the violation of the law alleged with respect to forfeiture of the property, andthe instructions for filing and serving a claim. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(j).To challenge the forfeiture, any person claiming an interest in seized property must file a verifiedclaim within 30 days after receipt of actual notice. Health and Safety § 11488.5(a)(1). If at theend of the 30-day period, or after 30 days from the date of the last publication, there is no claimon file, the court upon motion shall declare the property forfeited. Health and Safety Code §11488.5(b)(1). If no timely claim is filed, the Court, upon motion, shall declare the property seizedor subject to forfeiture upon a showing by the District Attorney that there is a prima facie case insupport of the forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(b)(1).Under either state or federal law, the “probable cause” standard represents the minimum primafacie case the People must make to obtain a default forfeiture judgment. People v. $47,050 (1993)17 Cal.App.4th 1319, 1325, fn. 6. A prima face case of probable cause for forfeiture is thatminimal level of evidence to support the conclusion that the illegal activities alleged specificallyrelated to narcotics trafficking, or evidence linking the cash to a narcotics transaction. People v.$497,590 United States Currency (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 145, 154. An expert’s opinion on anultimate issue of fact is admissible and may constitute substantial evidence in forfeiture matterswhere is based on an adequate factual foundation showing a nexus between the cash seized andnarcotics trafficking. People v. $47,050, supra 17 Cal.App.4th at 1325.Here, the subject property was seized from Marty Hilliard, who was served the required noticesand signed the acknowledgement of receipt. Hilliard filed a Claim Opposing Forfeiture on June4, 2021. The People filed a Petition for Forfeiture in Rem on June 24, 2021. The Petition wasserved on Hilliard by mail. After multiple failures to appear at hearings regarding the Claim, andthe imposition of sanctions, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for failure toappear. On April 17, 2023, the Court dismissed the Claim pursuant to Gov’t Code section68608(b). Notice was properly published in the Record Searchlight on April 21, 2024, April 28,2024, and May 5, 2024.As for the prima facie case, Petitioner has met its burden. Officer Seth Edwards has provided thenecessary expert opinion that the seized currency was furnished or was intended to be furnishedby a person in exchange for a controlled substance, was proceeds traceable to an exchange ofcontrolled substances or was/intended to be used to facilitate conduct in violation of Health andSafety Code §§ 11359 and/or 11360. His opinion is supported by the foundational facts that: the$11,440.00 US Currency was found in Mr. Hillard’s residence, along with 6 ounces ofmethamphetamine, one ounce of heroin, packaging materials, and a digital scale. Petitioner hasprovided the required evidence to establish a prima facie case of forfeiture. The Motion for DefaultJudgment is GRANTED. A proposed order and judgment has been lodged and will be executed.
Ruling
The People of the State of California vs. $12,276.00 U.S. Currency
Jul 19, 2024 |24CV-0204435
U.S. CURRENCYCase Number: 24CV-0204435This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of return of funds. At the last hearing onJune 10, 2024, the People advised the Court that the underlying criminal case was dismissed. ThePeople further advised they intended to dismiss this case. The Court directed return of the fundsto the Claimant. A Motion to Dismiss has been filed. However, the return of funds has not beenaddressed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to address the status of the returnof funds.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. $1000.00
Ruling
THE PEOPLE VS. $14, 240.00 U.S.CURRENCY
Jul 16, 2024 |CVPT21-0197475
THE PEOPLE VS. $14, 240.00 U.S. CURRENCYCase Number: CVPT21-0197475Tentative Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment: The People of the State of California movefor forfeiture of $11,440.00 US Currency pursuant to Health and Safety Code 11488.5(b)(1).Hearing on this Motion for Default Judgment was continued from April 15, 2024 to permit thePeople to cure the following defects: 1) improper proof of service, 2) improperly verifieddeclaration. Both defects have been cured.Merits: Currency that is “furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for acontrolled substance” or used or intended to be used to facilitate particular provisions of the Healthand Safety Code are subject to seizure and forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11470. Thejudicial and/or administrative procedure for forfeiture is laid out generally in Health and SafetyCode §§ 11488.4 and 11488.5. For a judicial forfeiture the District Attorney’s Office (or otheragency) is required to file a Petition for Forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(a). ThePetition for Forfeiture must be served on the individuals from whom the property was seized.Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(c). This service is in addition to the service of a notice at thetime of the seizure. Id. Notices of forfeiture must also be published for three consecutive weeksin a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the subject property was seized. Healthand Safety Code § 11488.4(e). The notice must contain a description of the property, the appraisedvalue of the property, the date and place of seizure or location of any property not seized butsubject to forfeiture, the violation of the law alleged with respect to forfeiture of the property, andthe instructions for filing and serving a claim. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(j).To challenge the forfeiture, any person claiming an interest in seized property must file a verifiedclaim within 30 days after receipt of actual notice. Health and Safety § 11488.5(a)(1). If at theend of the 30-day period, or after 30 days from the date of the last publication, there is no claimon file, the court upon motion shall declare the property forfeited. Health and Safety Code §11488.5(b)(1). If no timely claim is filed, the Court, upon motion, shall declare the property seizedor subject to forfeiture upon a showing by the District Attorney that there is a prima facie case insupport of the forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(b)(1).Under either state or federal law, the “probable cause” standard represents the minimum primafacie case the People must make to obtain a default forfeiture judgment. People v. $47,050 (1993)17 Cal.App.4th 1319, 1325, fn. 6. A prima face case of probable cause for forfeiture is thatminimal level of evidence to support the conclusion that the illegal activities alleged specificallyrelated to narcotics trafficking, or evidence linking the cash to a narcotics transaction. People v.$497,590 United States Currency (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 145, 154. An expert’s opinion on anultimate issue of fact is admissible and may constitute substantial evidence in forfeiture matterswhere is based on an adequate factual foundation showing a nexus between the cash seized andnarcotics trafficking. People v. $47,050, supra 17 Cal.App.4th at 1325.Here, the subject property was seized from Marty Hilliard, who was served the required noticesand signed the acknowledgement of receipt. Hilliard filed a Claim Opposing Forfeiture on June4, 2021. The People filed a Petition for Forfeiture in Rem on June 24, 2021. The Petition wasserved on Hilliard by mail. After multiple failures to appear at hearings regarding the Claim, andthe imposition of sanctions, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for failure toappear. On April 17, 2023, the Court dismissed the Claim pursuant to Gov’t Code section68608(b). Notice was properly published in the Record Searchlight on April 21, 2024, April 28,2024, and May 5, 2024.As for the prima facie case, Petitioner has met its burden. Officer Seth Edwards has provided thenecessary expert opinion that the seized currency was furnished or was intended to be furnishedby a person in exchange for a controlled substance, was proceeds traceable to an exchange ofcontrolled substances or was/intended to be used to facilitate conduct in violation of Health andSafety Code §§ 11359 and/or 11360. His opinion is supported by the foundational facts that: the$11,440.00 US Currency was found in Mr. Hillard’s residence, along with 6 ounces ofmethamphetamine, one ounce of heroin, packaging materials, and a digital scale. Petitioner hasprovided the required evidence to establish a prima facie case of forfeiture. The Motion for DefaultJudgment is GRANTED. A proposed order and judgment has been lodged and will be executed.
Ruling
The People of the State of California vs. $12,276.00 U.S. Currency
Jul 18, 2024 |24CV-0204435
U.S. CURRENCYCase Number: 24CV-0204435This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of return of funds. At the last hearing onJune 10, 2024, the People advised the Court that the underlying criminal case was dismissed. ThePeople further advised they intended to dismiss this case. The Court directed return of the fundsto the Claimant. A Motion to Dismiss has been filed. However, the return of funds has not beenaddressed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to address the status of the returnof funds.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. $1000.00
Ruling
The People of the State of California vs. $1000.00 U.S. Currency
Jul 15, 2024 |22CV-0199795
U.S. CURRENCYCase Number: 22CV-0199795This consolidated asset forfeiture matter is on calendar for review regarding status of criminalproceedings and amended petition. On June 10, 2024, the People advised the Court that Judgmentand Sentencing in the underlying criminal matter was set for June 13, 2024. No amended petitionhas been filed. No status report has been filed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendarto provide the Court with a status of the criminal proceeding and amended petition.
Document
SEACOAST NATIONAL BANK NA V PURE HARMONY INTIMATE HEALTH STUDIO LLC
Jul 12, 2024 |Maxine D. Cheesman |COMM FORECLOSURE = > $250K |50-2024-CA-006511-XXXA-MB
Document
POINCIANA PLACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION IV INC V 3959 POINCIANA LLC
Jul 12, 2024 |Jaimie R. Goodman |Assn Lien Foreclosure = < $50K |50-2024-CA-006540-XXXA-MB
Document
ABDEL-RAHMAN, NADIA V CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
Jul 16, 2024 |John J. Parnofiello |INSURANCE CLAIM |50-2024-CA-006679-XXXA-MB
Document
THOMPSON, ANTHONY V ASI PREFERRED INSURANCE CORPORATION
Jul 15, 2024 |Bradley G. Harper |INSURANCE CLAIM |50-2024-CA-006556-XXXA-MB
Document
NUNES, CELIA M V AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY
Jul 16, 2024 |Bradley G. Harper |INSURANCE CLAIM |50-2024-CA-006650-XXXA-MB
Document
REGIONS BANK V OLAVARRIA, CHRISTINA
Jul 15, 2024 |John J. Parnofiello |HR FORECLOSURE = > $250K |50-2024-CA-006605-XXXA-MB
Document
4165373 CANADA INC V QUANTUM MED LLC
Jul 15, 2024 |G. Joseph Curley |COMM FORECLOSURE > $50K, < $250K |50-2024-CA-006570-XXXA-MB
Document
GILMOUR, ALISIA V VILLA, DR JOHN F
Jul 16, 2024 |Scott R. Kerner |OTHER CIRCUIT |50-2024-CA-006568-XXXA-MB
