EARL J. SHAW, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 affirmed a civil commitment order designating Earl Shaw as a sexually violent predator under Florida Statutes § 394.917. Shaw appealed arguing insufficient evidence supported the finding that he was likely to engage in sexual violence if not confined, but the court found the evidence more than sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
The court affirmed the commitment order, finding the evidence was more than sufficient to permit the jury to reach its verdict. The court also rejected Shaw's procedural motion, noting that even if the nomenclature of 'JOA' were not a procedural bar, counsel's statement that the State had covered all basic elements preserved nothing.
[1] A motion for judgment of acquittal is appropriate in a criminal case, while a motion for directed verdict applies in a civil proceeding.
[2] A motion for judgment of acquittal, even if improperly named in a civil case, must actually be made to preserve an issue for appeal.
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“likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for long-term control, care, and treatment”
This is the statutory standard that must be met for civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under § 394.912(10)(B), which Shaw challenged on appeal as unsupported by evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a finding of probable cause, Shaw proceeded to a jury trial for civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under § 394.9155, Florida Statut…
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 Sexually Violent Predator Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order entered after a jury trial committing appellant as a sexually violent predator under section 394.917, Florida Statutes (2008). On appeal, appellant argues that no competent substantial evidence supports a conclusion that he was “likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for long-term control, care, and treatment.” § 394.912(10)(B), Fla. Stat. (2008). We affirm.
After an appropriate finding of probable cause, this case proceeded to a jury trial for civil commitment under the directives of section 394.9155, Florida Statutes (2008). Notwithstanding that such a proceeding is civil in nature, Westerheide v. State, 831 So.2d 93 (Fla.2002), and governed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, see section 394.9155(1), Florida Statutes (2008), counsel for Mr. Shaw, at the conclusion of the State’s case, purported to “raise a JOA [Judgment of Acquittal] motion.” The motion for judgment of acquittal is, of course, appropriate in a criminal case under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.380(a), but a motion for directed verdict applies in a civil proceeding under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.480. Even assuming that use of the nomenclature JOA would not be a procedural bar, we note that, far from actually making such a motion, defense counsel proceeded to state “the State has covered all the basic elements.... ” Such a motion preserved nothing. See Roeling v. State, 880 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Even were we to reach the merits, “the evidence was more than sufficient to permit the jury to find as it did.” Id. at 1236.
Accordingly, the order of commitment is AFFIRMED.
KAHN, BENTON, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Akins v. State, 247 So. 3d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Gering v. State, 252 So. 3d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Andujar-Sanchez v. State, 264 So. 3d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Westerheide v. State, 831 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2002)
- Rolon v. State, 880 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)