Background
Aaron Shaw, who had been civilly committed as a sexually violent predator under Florida’s Jimmy Ryce Act since 2008, sought discharge after his annual review. The trial court held a probable-cause hearing under section 394.918(3), Florida Statutes, to determine whether Shaw had shown probable cause that his condition had changed sufficiently for safe release.
Two evaluators concluded that Shaw continued to meet commitment criteria. Their reports cited his sexual-offense and institutional-violence history, refusal or poor participation in treatment, and 20 substantiated behavioral-management reports during the review period. At the hearing, Shaw received a recess to obtain clothing and legal papers, objected that he needed another doctor, and then intentionally logged off the Zoom proceeding before presenting evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District dismissed Shaw’s certiorari petition for lack of jurisdiction because the challenged no-probable-cause order was reviewable through a plenary appeal, meaning any alleged harm could be addressed on appeal.
On the appeal, the court affirmed. Shaw received notice of his right to seek the hearing and a meaningful opportunity to be heard; his voluntary failure to participate did not establish a due-process violation. Competent, substantial evidence—including the two expert reports and Shaw’s failure to offer contrary evidence—supported the finding that there was no probable cause to believe his condition had changed so that he could safely be discharged.
Key Takeaways
- A no-probable-cause order under the Jimmy Ryce Act is reviewable by appeal, not certiorari.
- Due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, not relief from the consequences of voluntarily leaving the hearing.
- Expert evaluations, treatment noncompliance, and substantiated institutional misconduct can support continued civil commitment.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the limited nature of the section 394.918(3) hearing: the committed person must establish probable cause that a changed condition makes discharge safe. A court may deny that threshold showing when the record contains substantial evidence of continuing risk and the person presents no meaningful contrary evidence.