ANDRES CABEZAS

v.

RICHARD CORCORAN AS THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

ROWE, J.

Andres Cabezas appeals a final order of the Education Practices Commission permanently revoking his Florida educator’s certificate based on his federal conviction for receipt of child pornography. He argues that he was denied due process because he was not granted a formal hearing before the EPC revoked his certificate. He also contends that the EPC had no authority to revoke his certificate because he had appealed his federal conviction. For the reasons below, we affirm.

Cabezas pleaded guilty to a federal charge of receipt of child pornography. After Cabezas was sentenced to twelve years in federal prison, the EPC filed an administrative complaint seeking to revoke his educator’s certificate. The EPC alleged that Cabezas

violated section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by pleading guilty to and being convicted of a disqualifying offense under section 1012.315, Florida Statutes.

Cabezas disputed the charges in the complaint, arguing that the EPC could not revoke his certificate because his federal conviction was not yet final. Cabezas requested a formal hearing on his election of rights form. The EPC reviewed the request and concluded that Cabezas had not disputed issues of material fact that would require a formal hearing under section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Instead, finding that Cabezas’ dispute was a legal one, the EPC held an informal hearing under section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. Based on their finding that the federal conviction was a disqualifying offense under section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, the EPC entered an order permanently revoking Cabezas’ educator’s certificate. This timely appeal follows.

Cabezas argues that the EPC deprived him of due process when it denied his request for a formal hearing. He further argues that the EPC lacked authority to revoke his license because his federal conviction was not yet final. We disagree.

Cabezas had no right to a formal hearing because his challenge to the EPC’s complaint did not involve any disputed issues of material fact. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, gives substantially affected parties the right to a formal hearing to challenge the decision of an administrative agency when issues of material fact are in dispute. Rosenzweig v. Dep’t of Transp., 979 So. 2d 1050, 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). When material facts are not in dispute, an agency need not grant a formal hearing and instead may conduct an informal hearing. Hobe Assocs., Ltd. v. State, Dep’t of Bus. Regulation, Div. of Fla. Land Sales, Condos., & Mobile Homes, 504 So. 2d 1301, 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

Cabezas claimed that the EPC could not revoke his educator’s certificate under section 1012.795 because his federal conviction was not yet final. Cabezas appealed the conviction and his appeal remained pending. Even so, Cabezas’ claim involves a legal dispute, not a factual one. To resolve the claim, the EPC was required only to consider whether Cabezas’ conviction needed to be final under section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, before the EPC

could revoke his educator’s certificate. Because Cabezas raised only a legal dispute over the finality of his conviction, the EPC did not err by conducting an informal hearing.

On the merits of Cabezas’ claim, the EPC correctly concluded that section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, does not require it to await the outcome of an appeal before the EPC may revoke an educator’s certificate based on a conviction. Rather, under the plain language of the statute, the EPC may suspend or revoke a license when the educator has “been convicted or found guilty of, has had adjudication withheld for, or has pled nolo contendere to a misdemeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge.” § 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes. The statute authorizes revocation of a certificate based on a conviction, or even a plea to criminal charges. Because the statute contains no provision for delaying discipline against an educator’s certificate because of a pending appeal, the EPC did not err when it revoked Cabezas’ educator certificate based on his federal conviction.

Finally, to the extent that Cabezas sought to challenge the facts supporting his federal conviction, an administrative proceeding is not the forum to relitigate a criminal conviction imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction. See McGraw v. Dep’t of State, Div. of Licensing, 491 So. 2d 1193, 1195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (“To the extent that appellant sought to relitigate the question of his guilt regarding the subject offense, such is improper.”). Cabezas thus could not dispute the basis of his federal conviction in the proceeding before the EPC.

In sum, because Cabezas was not deprived of due process when the EPC conducted an informal hearing and the revocation of his license was authorized under section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes, the EPC did not err when it revoked Cabezas’ educator’s certificate.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, C.J., and TANENBAUM, J., concur. _____________________________