rally, and Wills’ purpose in calling a subordinate officer into his office was to speak with him for having made disrespectful comments to Wills while Wills was briefing his squad, and reminding the officer that he had been disrespectful during squad briefings on more than one occasion. The ALJ’s findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence. Ultimately, the FEC entered a Final Order dismissing the charges. However, in doing so, it rejected or modified portions of the ALJ’s findings of fact and substituted its own findings, which contradicted those of the ALJ. To reach its alternate findings, the FEC impermissibly reweighed the evidence and made inferences contrary to those reached by the ALJ. See e.g., Heifetz v. Dep’t of Bus. Reg., 475 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (<HOLDING>). Based on its substituted findings, the FEC
holding that a proper review of the sufficiency of the evidence under the due process clause gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony to weigh the evidence and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts holding that findings of fact are conclusive if supported by clear and convincing competent evidence even where the evidence might support contrary findings holding that we must uphold any of the aljs factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence and we owe substantial deference to inferences drawn from these facts holding agency may not reject an aljs findings of fact which are supported by competent substantial evidence nor is it authorized to reweigh the evidence resolve conflicts in testimony draw inferences judge eredibili ty of witnesses or otherwise interpret the evidence holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence