ADOLPH COMER, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Rule Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner, a prisoner within the custody of the Florida Department of Corree-tions, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the Florida Parole and Probation Commission has violated legislative directives in its establishment of certain rules.1
While the petitioner claims a jurisdictional base in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (1979), we find no showing of exhaustion of administrative remedies here. Petitioner is entitled to seek § 120.54(5), F.S., or § 120.-56, F.S., proceedings, which may resolve the issues without resorting to premature judicial intervention. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed without prejudice to seek review pursuant to § 120.68, F.S., of any final orders of the Parole and Probation Commission resulting from Chapter 120 proceedings.
WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., and WOODIE A. LILES (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur. . Petitioner asserts that Rule 23-19.02(2)(g), Fla.Admin.Code, violates legislative intent as expressed in s. 947.165(1), Fla.Stat. (1979), in that the rule may act to impose a longer term to serve than is proper by taking certain factors into account more than once. We do not speak to the merits of this claim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Daniels v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 401 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…a. 1st DCA 1977); McDonald v. Dept. of Banking & Finance, 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Moreover, the Commission is not excluded from the Act’s scope under Section 120.50 2 or otherwise.3 Compare Comer v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 388 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The most significant question before us is whether an inmate may be considered a party to the action which he seeks to have [*1354] reviewed when the APA denies him the right to obtain certain privileges that would be otherwise…
-
Alcene McKAHN v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 399 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…id exercise of delegated legislative authority. See Fla.Admin. Code Rule 23-19.01(5). We decline to examine this issue by extraordinary writ, since ordinary avenues of appeal have not been exhausted. Comer v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 388 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). He next contends that his offense characteristic was incorrectly established. The documents in his appendix substantiate that he had been charged, convicted and sentenced only for simple possession of a controlled substance. In…
-
T.L.W. v. The Honorable A.C. Soud, Jr., 645 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…595 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1992). Petitioners’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies, where available, may also proeedurally bar consideration of claims raised through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Comer v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 388 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). These requirements serve the dual purpose of permitting the trial court or administrative forum to first consider the claims for relief and providing the appellate court with a record of the parties’ arguments and the trial cour…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence