#099-TTC-1286



#099-TTC-1286 --

DOCKET NO. 099-TTC-1286

TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY, + BEFORE THE STATE

DIVISION OF TEACHER +

CERTIFICATION +

+

V. + COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

+

+

+

JAMES EDWARD MUDD + THE STATE OF TEXAS

DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER

Statement of the Case

The Division of Teacher Certification seeks revocation

of the Texas Teacher Certificate held by Respondent James

Mudd.

Petitioner is represented by Mr. Derrell A. Coleman,

Attorney at Law, Austin, Texas. Respondent is represented

by Ms. Dianne E. Doggett, Attorney at Law, Austin, Texas.

On October 30, 1987, a hearing on the merits was held

before Hearing Officer Terry J. Johnson.

On February 25, 1988, a proposal for decision was

issued containing the recommendation that Respondent's

certification be revoked. On March 21, 1988, Respondent was

granted an additional thirty days in which to file

exceptions. No exceptions were filed.

Findings of Fact

After due consideration of the evidence and matters

officially noticed, in my capacity as State Commissioner of

Education, I make the following Findings of Fact:

1. Respondent holds Texas Teacher Certificate No.

XXX-XX-XXXX. (Record).

2. On May 15, 1981, in Cause No. 3731 before the 81st

Judicial District Court if Frio County, Texas, Respondent

was convicted of felony theft in the third degree. (Tr. 12;

Pet. Ex. 4).

3. As a result of his conviction in Cause No. 3731,

Respondent was placed on five (5) years probation and was

also required, inter alia, to pay restitution in the amount

of Twenty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Five Dollars

and Ninety Two Cents ($25,975.92). (Pet. Ex. 4).

4. On February 22, 1982, in Cause No. 81-11-10,482

before the 24th Judicial District Court of Victoria County,

Texas, Respondent was convicted of the felony offense of

theft. (Pet. Ex. 6).

5. As a result of his conviction in Cause No.

81-11-10,482, Respondent was placed on ten (10) years

probation.

6. On July 1, 1982, Respondent's Frio County probation

was revoked. (Pet. Ex. 8).

7. Respondent was physically incarcerated from March

1982 until October 1984.

8. Respondent has not made restitution on the Frio

County conviction. (Tr. 38; Pet. Ex. 4, 7).

9. Respondent is still serving probation for his

Victoria County conviction. (Tr. 57).

10. On August 29, 1985, in executing the Applicant's

Affidavit portion of an application for an emergency

teaching permit, Respondent falsely stated under oath that

he had not been convicted of a felony. (Pet. Ex. 1).

Discussion

Respondent has been convicted for two separate crimes,

both felonies, both involving worthless checks. Moreover,

these convictions came to light after Respondent falsely

swore that he had not been convicted of a felony in order to

secure an emergency teaching permit.

At the time of hearing, Respondent was still on felony

probation from his Victoria County conviction. The Frio

County felony probation, which was ultimately revoked, would

have required Respondent to pay restitution in the amount of

$25,975.92 for the benefit of those from whom he had

acquired money or property through the use of worthless

checks.

Respondent actually paid less than 10% of the

restitution amount and takes no further responsibility for

the matter.

Respondent presented letters testimonial from persons

in his home area. Despite the best intentions of those who

have submitted recommendations in his favor, the record in

this case contains abundant satisfactory evidence to show

that Respondent is ill-suited to the authority and

responsibility entrusted to the teachers of this state.

Felony theft is a crime involving moral turpitude.

Respondent stands twice convicted, having committed the

second offense while on probation for the first. In

addition, he has misrepresented his criminal past in an

effort to obtain a teaching permit. Respondent argues that

the blame should be assigned to the school district, whose

employees actually completed the request for an emergency

teaching permit. Not only is this argument unpersuasive, it

illustrates a continued inability of Respondent to take

responsibility for the consequences of his own actions.

Under the circumstances of this case, Respondent has

failed to demonstrate an adequate basis upon which he should

be allowed to retain his certificate. Merely obeying the

law does not constitute rehabilitation.

Conclusions of Law

After due consideration of the record, matters

officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact, in

my capacity as State Commissioner of Education, I make the

following Conclusions of Law:

1. Respondent is a person unworthy to instruct the

youth of this state.

2. Texas Teacher Certificate No. XXX-XX-XXXX held by

Respondent should be canceled.

O R D E R

After due consideration of the record, matters

officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law, in my capacity as State Commissioner of

Education, it is hereby

ORDERED that Respondent's, James Edward Mudd, Texas

Teacher Certificate No. XXX-XX-XXXX be, and is hereby,

REVOKED.

SIGNED AND ENTERED this _____ day of ________________,

19_____.

__________________________________

W. N. KIRBY

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download