Savage v. State
2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13979, 2013 WL 4610009, 120 So. 3d 619 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court's review of a probation revocation is a two-step process. First, the court determines if the trial court's factual finding of a willful and substantial violation is supported by competent substantial evidence; second, it reviews the trial court's ultimate decision to revoke probation for an abuse of discretion.
Facts:
- Harry Savage was serving a sentence of sex offender probation.
- A condition of Savage's probation prohibited him from having contact with children.
- Savage had contact with a child.
- This contact led the State to initiate proceedings to revoke his probation.
Procedural Posture:
- Harry Savage was sentenced to sex offender probation by a Florida trial court.
- The State filed an affidavit alleging Savage had violated the terms of his probation.
- Following a hearing, the trial court found that Savage willfully and substantially violated his probation.
- The trial court revoked Savage's probation and sentenced him to a twenty-year prison term.
- Savage appealed the revocation and sentence to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal, arguing the evidence did not show a willful and substantial violation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
What is the proper two-step standard of review that an appellate court must apply when reviewing a trial court's order revoking a defendant's probation?
Opinions:
Majority - LaRose, J.
The proper standard of review involves a two-step analysis. An appellate court must first determine if the trial court's factual finding that the probationer willfully and substantially violated probation is supported by competent substantial evidence. If it is, the court then reviews the trial court's discretionary decision to actually revoke, modify, or continue probation under an abuse of discretion standard. The court reasoned that these are two distinct inquiries: one is a factual, evidence-based review (sufficiency of evidence), and the other is a review of the trial court's judgment call (reasonableness of the outcome). The court observed that many prior appellate decisions have improperly conflated these two standards, often using "abuse of discretion" to describe both steps, but clarified that the correct approach requires keeping them separate. The first step asks if there is legally sufficient evidence for the finding, while the second step asks if the resulting action was a reasonable choice among the available options.
Analysis:
This decision provides a crucial clarification of the appellate standard of review for probation revocations in Florida. By explicitly separating the review of the factual finding from the review of the discretionary act of revocation, the court establishes a more precise and analytically rigorous framework. This holding serves to guide lower courts and practitioners, discouraging the conflation of the 'competent substantial evidence' standard with the 'abuse of discretion' standard. Consequently, future appeals in this area will likely feature more structured arguments, focusing distinctly on the sufficiency of the evidence for the violation and the reasonableness of the resulting sanction.
