LEO A. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
RALPH D. TURLINGTON, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the Education Practices Commission's permanent revocation of a teacher's certificate, holding that permanent revocation constitutes a distinct penalty separate from revocation and requires specific notice in the administrative complaint.
The Commission's imposition of permanent revocation was reversed because permanent revocation is a separate and distinct penalty from revocation under Florida law, and Williams was not given notice in the complaint or proceedings that he faced the risk of permanent revocation.
[1] A disciplinary body may not impose a penalty that was not sought in the administrative complaint or otherwise put the respondent on notice that such a penalty was being c…
[2] Permanent revocation of a teaching certificate is a distinct and greater penalty than a fixed-term revocation.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Permanent revocation, the penalty imposed upon Williams by the Commission despite a recommendation by the hearing officer of revocation, is, under the applicable statute, not a species of revocation, but a separate and distinct— indeed greater — penalty”
Establishes that permanent revocation is a distinct penalty from regular revocation under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was charged in an administrative complaint with incompetency, gross insubordination, immorality, and misconduct in office. The complaint soug…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Penalty Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final order of the Education Practices Commission permanently revoking Williams’ teaching certificate is reversed and the cause remanded to the Commission for the entry of an order revoking the said certificate. The administrative complaint charging Williams with incompetency, gross insubordination, immorality, and misconduct in office expressly sought, as the severest penalty, the revocation of Williams’ certificate. Permanent revocation, the penalty imposed upon Williams by the Commission despite a recommendation by the hearing officer of revocation, is, under the applicable statute, not a species of revocation, but a separate and distinct— indeed greater — penalty:
“Education Practices Commission; authority to discipline.—
“(1) The Education Practices Commission shall have authority to suspend the teaching certificate of any person as defined in s. 228.041(9) or (10) for a period of time not to exceed 3 years, thereby denying him the right to teach for that period of time, after which the holder may return to teaching as provided in subsection (4); to revoke the teaching certificate of any person, thereby denying him the right to teach for a period of time not to exceed 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions of subsection (4); to revoke permanently the teaching certificate of any person; or to impose any other penalty provided by law....”
§ 231.28(1), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1984).
Since Williams was not given notice by either the complaint or any later proceedings that he was at risk of having his license permanently revoked, the Commission’s imposition of the non-prayed-for relief of permanent revocation, even if justified by the evidence, was error. Reversed and remanded with directions.