Savage v. State
120 So. 3d 619
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Harry Savage had sex-offender probation revoked after contact with a child; the trial court imposed a 20-year prison sentence.
- Savage appealed, arguing the contact did not constitute a willful and substantial violation of his probation terms.
- The trial court found the State proved the violation by the greater weight of the evidence and revoked probation.
- The district court examined whether competent substantial evidence supported the willfulness and substantiality finding and then whether the revocation was an abuse of discretion.
- The court concluded the record contained competent substantial evidence of a willful and substantial violation and that revocation was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Savage's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Savage's contact with a child was a willful and substantial violation of probation | Contact was not willful or substantial and therefore did not justify revocation | Evidence in the record supports a finding that Savage willfully and substantially violated probation | Court: competent substantial evidence supports willfulness and substantiality; revocation affirmed |
| Proper standard of appellate review for probation revocation findings | Appellate review should treat revocation and underlying factual finding the same (abuse of discretion) | Review is two-step: (1) assess competent substantial evidence for willful and substantial violation; (2) if satisfied, review decision to revoke for abuse of discretion | Court: clarifies two-step approach — first competent substantial evidence for willfulness, then abuse-of-discretion review of revocation decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Del Valle v. State, 80 So.3d 999 (Fla. 2011) (identifies burden — greater weight/preponderance — for proving probation violations)
- De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1957) (defines competent substantial evidence as that which a reasonable mind would accept)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (defines abuse of discretion — action no reasonable person could have taken)
- Dunn v. State, 454 So.2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (explains "competent substantial evidence" meaning)
- Blackwood v. State, 946 So.2d 960 (Fla. 2006) (review for competent substantial evidence tests legal sufficiency, not weight)
- Cerny v. State, 65 So.3d 609 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (discusses sequencing — competent substantial evidence prerequisite to abuse-of-discretion review)