Barron v. State
217 So. 3d 1088
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2005 Alex Barron was civilly committed under Florida's sexually violent predator statute after a jury trial.
- In 2015 Barron petitioned for release; the court conducted a section 394.918(3) limited probable-cause hearing required before setting a full trial.
- Barron presented an evaluating psychologist who met with him and opined there was probable cause his condition changed and he could be safely released.
- The State presented a competing evaluation by a psychologist who did not meet Barron but reviewed records and concluded Barron remained likely to commit sexual violence.
- The trial court reviewed the competing reports, heard argument, concluded Barron had not met the probable-cause standard, and denied the petition and request for a full trial.
- The appellate court affirmed, relying largely on the 2014 amendment to section 394.918(3) that expressly permits the court to "weigh and consider" evidence from both sides at the probable-cause hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probable-cause hearing requires only a sufficiency-only review of petitioner's evidence (no weighing) | Barron argued prior case law required courts to consider only petitioner’s evidence and not weigh competing evidence at the probable-cause stage | State argued the amended statute allows the State to present evidence and the court to weigh it | The court held the 2014 amendment permits the court to weigh and consider evidence from both parties at the probable-cause hearing |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying a full trial after reviewing competing evaluations | Barron contended his psychologist’s report, if credited, established probable cause and required a full trial | State maintained its competing evaluation undermined probable cause and supported denial | The court affirmed denial; weighing competing evaluations was authorized and supported the result |
| Whether the 2014 statutory amendment conflicts with prior judicial construction (Westerheide line) | Barron relied on precedent construing the pre-2014 statute to bar weighing | State argued the legislature changed the statutory scheme and authorized weighing | The court held the amendment supersedes prior case law that prohibited weighing at the limited hearing |
| Whether any constitutional challenge to the amendment was raised | Barron did not raise a constitutional challenge below or on appeal | State asserted none | Court noted no constitutional challenge was presented and did not address constitutional issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Westerheide v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (pre-2014 construction: probable-cause hearing is a sufficiency review of petitioner’s evidence only)
- Spivey v. State, 100 So. 3d 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (similar characterization of limited probable-cause hearing as not for weighing evidence)
- In re Commitment of Allen, 927 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (trial court should consider only petitioner’s evidence at probable-cause hearing under prior law)
- Fuery v. State, 968 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (construing limited hearing as evidentiary sufficiency review)
- Green v. State, 604 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1992) (statutory language given plain meaning)
- Jones v. ETS of New Orleans, Inc., 793 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2001) (legislature presumed aware of judicial construction when amending statute)