FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, PETITIONER,
v.
BILLY FERGUSON, RESPONDENT
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 Parole Commission sought review of a lower court decision invalidating a parole revocation. The appellate court held that while the lower court correctly identified the legal standard for revocation, it improperly reweighed evidence rather than applying the proper deferential standard of review to the hearing officer's factual findings.
The court held that the lower court departed from the essential requirements of law by reweighing conflicting evidence rather than applying the proper deferential standard of review. Factual determinations regarding willful violations of supervision conditions are for the hearing officer to make, and the matter was remanded for the hearing officer to make the required factual determination.
[1] Only a willful violation of a substantial condition of parole or probation will justify revocation.
[2] A hearing officer must make factual findings to support a determination that a parole or probation violation was willful.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The court correctly found that revocation was not proper where neither the hearing officer's records nor the Commission's order of revocation indicated that respondent's actions constituted a willful and substantial violation of his conditional release supervision.”
Establishes the correct legal standard for parole revocation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Billy Ferguson was under conditional release supervision. The Parole Commission sought to revoke his conditional release based on alleged v…
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 Factual Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In a petition for writ of certiorari, the Florida Parole Commission asserts that the lower court departed from the essential requirements of law in concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that respondent willfully violated a substantial condition of his conditional release supervision. The court correctly found that revocation was not proper where neither the hearing officer’s records nor the Commission’s order of revocation indicated that respondent’s actions constituted a willful and substantial violation of his conditional release supervision. E.g., Crosby v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 949 So. 2d 1181, 1182-83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Mathis v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 944 So. 2d 1182,1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
However, the court went on to find that there was insufficient evidence to make such a finding. In doing so, the court improperly reweighed conflicting evidence. By reweighing conflicting evidence, the circuit court applied the wrong standard of review which is tantamount to departing from the essential requirements of law. See Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Stenmark, 941 So. 2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Mabrey v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 858 So. 2d 1176, 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Whether there was a willful violation of a substantial condition of supervision is a factual determination to be made by the hearing officer. Mathis, 944 So. 2d at 1183.
Therefore, the matter should be remanded for a factual determination by the hearing officer as to whether respondent’s violations were willful and substantial. Id.
Accordingly, we grant the petition, quash the lower court’s order, and remand for further proceedings.
PETITION GRANTED.
WEBSTER, VAN NORTWICK, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mathis v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 944 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Stenmark, 941 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Crosby v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 949 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Mabrey v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 858 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)