CLARENCE LAWTON
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 3d DCA | 2024-03-06
No. 2022-1497
2024 FL 2496 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2024)

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.

Holding

The trial court properly denied appellant's petition for release from civil commitment where competent, substantial evidence in the record supports the finding that appellant failed to establish probable cause that his condition has changed such that his release poses no danger to the community.

Headnotes

[1] At a probable cause hearing for release from civil commitment as a sexually violent predator, the committed person bears the burden of proving that their condition has ch…

[2] The omission of language requiring the state to prove its case by clear and convincing evidence from the statute governing probable cause hearings, but its inclusion in t…

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
Facts & Procedural History

Clarence Lawton was civilly committed as a sexually violent predator under the Jimmy Ryce Act in 2010 after serving a sentence for attempted sexual ba…

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.

Topics
Sexually Violent Predator Commitment Sexually Violent Predator Jimmy Ryce Act Civil Commitment

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sexually Violent Predator Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 6, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1497 Lower Tribunal No. F01-28383

________________

Clarence Lawton,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ellen Sue Venzer, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ. SCALES, J. Appellant Clarence Lawton appeals a July 29, 2022 trial court order finding no probable cause to conduct a trial on whether to release him from civil commitment. Lawton was determined to be a sexually violent predator under the Jimmy Ryce Act, section 394.910 et seq. of the Florida Statutes.1 He has been subject to civil commitment at a treatment facility since his release from prison in 2010. On January 6, 2022, Lawton filed a “Petition for Release” pursuant to section 394.918, alleging that there is probable cause to believe that Lawton’s “condition has so changed that his release will pose no danger to the community, and he will not engage in acts of sexual violence if released.”

The trial court held a two-day evidentiary hearing on Lawton’s petition at which the trial court received testimonial and documentary evidence from two medical professionals, as well as several treatment progress reports from the facility at which Lawton is housed. After weighing the evidence presented, and after assessing the credibility, methodology and factual bases for the testimonial evidence, the trial court entered a detailed, six-page

Footnotes
1 In 1999, Lawton was charged with lewd assault, pled guilty, and was sentenced to 364 days in jail followed by six years of probation. In 2001, Lawton was charged with attempted sexual battery, pled guilty, and was sentenced to ten years in prison. order determining that Lawton had failed to meet his burden to establish the requisite probable cause. On appeal, Lawton essentially asks this Court to reweigh the evidence and come to a different conclusion from that of the trial court. Our standard of review, however, is to determine whether the trial court’s conclusion is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Abaunza v. State, 278 So. 3d 207, 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). Indeed, in conducting this review, we look only at the evidence supporting the trial court’s findings. Id. at 210-11. We conclude that the trial court’s findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record – to wit, the facility’s reports and a 2021 risk assessment report – and affirm the challenged order. Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw