JEFF C. DECOLA, APPELLANT,
v.
BETTY CASTOR, 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.
Jeff DeCola appealed the revocation of his teaching certificate by the Education Practices Commission (EPC), challenging the penalty imposed and arguing that the EPC violated his due process rights by considering materials outside the stipulated record. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation, finding any error in including the disputed memorandum was harmless.
The court affirmed the revocation, finding that while it was improper to include the memorandum referencing alleged drug use, the error was harmless because the EPC had substantial competent evidence to support its decision and references to the alleged drug activity were also present in the transcript of DeCola's deposition, which was part of the stipulated record.
[1] An administrative agency's consideration of matters outside a stipulated record during penalty imposition constitutes harmless error when substantial competent evidence s…
[2] A court is not authorized to review an administrative agency's penalty when the agency found the party guilty based on admitted facts and the penalty imposed is within th…
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“We believe it was improper to include the memorandum which referred to appellant's alleged use of drugs in the EPC's materials. Nevertheless, we believe the panel had before it substantial competent evidence to support its decision, and since references to alleged drug activity were also present in the transcript of his deposition, which was part of the stipulated record, we believe that the inclusion of the memorandum was harmless error.”
Establishes the court's harmless error analysis—while acknowledging the impropriety of including the memorandum, the court found it did not prejudice the outcome.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeCola admitted the factual allegations in the administrative complaint filed against him. After an informal hearing before the EPC, he was found to h…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant challenges the penalty imposed on revocation of his teaching certificate by the Education Practices Commission (EPC) following an informal proceeding under section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). We affirm.
The Commissioner of Education filed an amended administrative complaint against appellant. The appellant admitted the factual allegations of the complaint but requested an informal hearing. After hearing testimony from appellant and others on his behalf, the EPC determined that appellant had violated section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes (1985), by engaging in conduct which seriously reduced his effectiveness as a school board employee, and revoked his certificate for five years.
Appellant does not challenge the evidentiary basis for revocation of his certificate. Rather, he argues that the EPC violated his due process rights by considering matters outside the stipulated record when imposing its penalty. Although allegations concerning drug possession and use were deleted from the initial administrative complaint, a memorandum to the Commissioner of Education containing statements about drug use was included in the materials presented to the EPC.
The crux of appellant’s contention is that during discussion of a motion to revoke his certificate for two years one panel member made reference to the drug allegations. That motion was defeated. Subsequently a motion was passed revoking his certificate for five years.
We believe it was improper to include the memorandum which referred to appellant’s alleged use of drugs in the EPC’s materials. Nevertheless, we believe the panel had before it substantial competent evidence to support its decision, and since references to alleged drug activity were also present in the transcript of his deposition, which was part of the stipulated record, we believe that the inclusion of the memorandum was harmless error. See Peoples Bank of Indian River County v. State Department of Banking and Finance, 378 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), aff'd, 395 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1981); see also Polk v. School Board of Polk County, 373 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
The EPC found appellant guilty based on the admitted facts stated in the complaint, and the penalty imposed was within the authority of section 231.28. Thus, this court is not authorized to review the penalty. Florida Real Estate Commission v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201 (Fla.1978).
RYDER and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. League OF Cities, Inc. v. Admin. Comm'n & Dep't of Cmty. Affairs, 586 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…judicial review so long as its imposition is supported by competent substantial evidence and the penalty itself is within the statutory range as prescribed by law. Florida Real Estate Commission v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201 (Fla.1978); Decola v. Castor, 519 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Lee v. Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums, 474 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Statutes prescribing penalties typically place a maximum limit on the dollar amount of a fine or the temporal duration of the sanction. S…
-
Chrysler v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 627 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…s license. The court reversed, holding the Board had violated the physician’s due process rights to be notified of the charges against him by questioning him about matters not charged in the complaint.3 A final instructive case is Decola v. Castor, 519 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), involving a teacher who had his certificate revoked by the Education Practices Commission following an informal hearing. The teacher had admitted the factual allegations in the complaint. Nevertheless, he argued the Commission vi…
-
Moran v. Corcoran (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…0–41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (affirming permanent revocation of doctor’s license where the doctor 3 did not dispute any of the facts in the administrative complaint and requested an informal hearing before the Board of Medicine); Decola v. Castor, 519 So. 2d 709, 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (“The EPC found appellant guilty based on the admitted facts stated in the complaint, and the penalty imposed was within the authority of section 231.28. Thus, this court is not authorized to review the penalty.”). Affirm…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Real Est. Comm'n & Casimir Szpak v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1978)
- Peoples Bank OF Indian River Cnty. (proposed new bank) v. State, 395 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1981)
- Polk v. The Sch. Bd. OF Polk Cnty., 373 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Peoples Bank OF Indian River Cnty. (proposed new bank) v. State, 378 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)