ALVIN BRADLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION, 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.
Bradley, a certified correctional officer, challenged the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission's revocation of his certificate, which exceeded the hearing officer's recommended six-month suspension. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that an agency cannot increase a recommended penalty without rejecting, amending, or substituting at least one finding of fact or conclusion of law, and certified a conflict with Third District precedent.
An agency cannot reject a hearing officer's recommended penalty without properly rejecting, amending, or substituting at least one recommended finding of fact or conclusion of law. When an agency fully adopts the hearing officer's findings and conclusions, any remaining disagreement amounts to mere disagreement on the assessment of seriousness of the offense, which does not justify increasing the penalty.
[1] An administrative agency may not reject a hearing officer's recommended penalty without properly rejecting, amending, or substituting at least one recommended finding of…
[2] An agency's mere disagreement with the hearing officer's assessment of the seriousness of an offense is insufficient grounds to increase a recommended penalty.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“An agency should not reject the recommended penalty without properly rejecting, amending or substituting at least one recommended finding of fact or conclusion of law.”
Establishes the legal standard for when an agency may depart from a hearing officer's recommended penalty.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBradley, a certified correctional officer, was charged in an administrative complaint. After a formal hearing, the hearing officer found merit in the …
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 Administrative Law cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Chief Judge.
We grant appellant’s motion for certification and substitute the following revised opinion:
Bradley, a certified correctional officer, was charged in an administrative complaint. After a formal hearing, the hearing officer found merit in the complaint and recommended a six month suspension of Bradley’s certificate. The Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission rejected the hearing officer’s recommended penalty and revoked Bradley’s correctional officer certificate. We reverse.
The Commission’s order adopts the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The order also adopts the exceptions filed by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission by its Assistant General Counsel; and these exceptions are the Commission’s express grounds for rejecting the hearing officer’s recommended penalty. The exceptions, however, are based on factors specifically considered by the hearing officer and cannot justify an increase in the recommended penalty. Hanley v. Department of Professional Regulation, 549 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Having fully adopted the findings and conclusions of the hearing officer, the agency’s only disagreement with the hearing officer is assessment of the seriousness of the offenses. An agency should not reject the recommended penalty without properly rejecting, amending or substituting at least one recommended finding of fact or conclusion of law. Bajrangi v. Department of Business Regulation, 561 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Mere disagreement is not a ground to increase the penalty. The order revoking Bradley’s certificate is reversed and remanded with instructions to approve the hearing officer’s recommendation. See Bernal v. Department of Professional Regulation, 517 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), approved, 531 So. 2d 967 (Fla.1988).
We acknowledge our decision here conflicts with third district decisions which allow an agency to increase the recommended penalty while fully adopting the hearing officer’s conclusions of law and findings of fact. E.g. Allen v. School Bd. of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
However, if an agency has no disagreement with the hearing officer’s conclusions of law and findings of fact, any remaining differences of opinion must a priori reflect a mere “disagreement with the assessment of the seriousness of the offense by the hearing officer, made not as a general proposition, but as tailored to the situation of [the offender] in particular.” Bernal, 517 So. 2d 113, 115-16.
We agree with the fifth district’s decision in Barangi v. Department of Business Regulation, 561 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), and certify the conflict.
NIMMONS and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hood v. Fla. Dep't of Law Enf't, 585 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…ject the penalty recommended by the hearing officer without properly rejecting, amending, or substituting for, at least one of the hearing officer’s findings of fact or conclusions of law. Bradley v. Criminal Justice Standards & Training Commission, 577 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Bajrangi v. Department of Business Regulation, 561 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Hambley v. Department of Professional Regulation, 568 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The Commission’s order revoking appellant’s certification i…
-
Short v. Fla. Dep't of Law Enf't, 589 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ting at least one recommended finding of fact or conclusion of law; and a mere disagreement as to the seriousness of the offense is not a sufficient reason for increasing the penalty. Bradley v. Criminal Justice Standards and Training [*366] Comm’n, 577 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (citing Bernal v. Department of Professional Regulation, 517 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), approved, 531 So. 2d 967 (Fla.1988)). The Commission answers that it did not abuse its discretion by interpreting subsections 943.1395(5…
-
Crim. Just. Standards & Training Comm'n v. Bradley, 596 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1992)…OVERTON, Justice. This is a petition to review Bradley v. Criminal Justice Standards & Training Commission, 577 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), in which the First District Court of Appeal held that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission could not increase the penalty for a correctional officer’s misconduct from that recommended by a hearing officer. The…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Prof'l Reg. v. Pedro F. Bernal, M.D., 531 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1988)
- Deroy Carter v. State, 517 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Pedro F. Bernal, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 517 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Allen v. The Sch. Bd. OF Dade Cnty., 571 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- M. James Hanley, R.N. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 549 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Rajendr Bajrangi v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 561 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)