Background
Aaron Shaw has been civilly committed as a sexually violent predator under Florida’s Jimmy Ryce Act since 2008, with periods of re-incarceration for new convictions. In 2024, he sought a probable-cause hearing to establish that his condition had changed enough for him to be safely discharged from commitment.
Two evaluators concluded that Shaw remained dangerous and required further treatment. Their reports cited his sexual-offense history, institutional violence, poor treatment participation, and twenty substantiated behavioral-management reports during the review period. At the probable-cause hearing, Shaw was given time to obtain clothing and legal papers, objected to proceeding, and then intentionally logged off the Zoom hearing rather than present evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District dismissed Shaw’s certiorari petition for lack of jurisdiction because the no-probable-cause order was reviewable by plenary appeal. It affirmed the same order on appeal.
The court held that Shaw received procedural due process: he was notified of his right to seek a hearing and was given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. His voluntary decision to leave the hearing did not establish a due-process violation. The court further held that competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Shaw had not shown probable cause that his condition had changed such that he could safely be discharged.
Key Takeaways
- A no-probable-cause order under the Jimmy Ryce Act is reviewable by appeal, not certiorari.
- Notice and a meaningful opportunity to participate satisfy procedural due process, even if the committed person declines to participate.
- Expert evaluations, behavioral records, and the absence of contrary evidence supported continued civil commitment here.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the limited nature of the probable-cause stage of a Jimmy Ryce Act release proceeding. A committed person must present evidence supporting a changed condition; disagreement with the hearing process or a choice not to participate will not displace record evidence supporting continued commitment.