DEAN C. HALL, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE & PROBATION COMMISSION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Dean Hall appealed a Florida Parole & Probation Commission order denying his petition for review of a prospective parole release date. The court dismissed the appeal because Hall failed to timely seek review within 60 days of the Commission's prior action on his initial petition.
The court held that Hall's second petition was untimely and properly rejected by the Commission. Hall was required to seek review within 60 days of the Commission's March 18, 1981 action, which he failed to do. The second petition presented no new issues and merely sought to relitigate a factual matter that had not been timely appealed from the prior order.
[1] An appeal from a Commission order is untimely if not filed within 60 days of the Commission's action.
[2] A petition for review of a prospective parole release date must be filed within the statutory time limits.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Proper review could have been sought from the Commission within 60 days of Commission action taken March 18, 1981. Appellant failed to do so and now is precluded from prosecuting these issues on appeal to this court.”
Establishes the strict timeliness requirement for challenging Commission decisions and the consequence of failing to meet it.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHall initially had a prospective parole release date established on January 21, 1981. He petitioned the Commission for review on February 13, 1981, an…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Salient Factor Score cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
The Commission in this case moves to dismiss an appeal commenced by notice filed August 18, 1981, from a Commission order dated July 14, 1981. That order denied a petition filed June 17, 1981, for review of a prospective parole release date apparently established initially on January 21, 1981. Appellant had previously petitioned the Commission for review of that PPRD on February 13, 1981, and by action on March 18, 1981, review was granted by reduction of the salient factor score without change in the release date. We dismiss the appeal because we agree with the Commission’s contention that “Proper review could have been sought from the Commission within 60 days of Commission action taken March 18, 1981. Appellant failed to do so and' now is precluded from prosecuting these issues on appeal to this court.”
The Commission correctly notes that the new information asserted by appellant as grounds for review on June 17, 1981, consisted of additional proof on an issue argued in his review petition of February 13, 1981, and denied by order of March 18, which was not timely challenged. Appellant’s petition was clearly not within the statutory conditions for a right of review under § 947.-173-174(1), Florida Statutes. It presented no issue other than asserted error in the factual predicate for the earlier order which was not appealed, and the Commission properly rejected the petition, on the ground of untimeliness, by an order which does not provide any basis for the appellant’s argument here on the merits of prior final agency action. § 947.16(4), § 947.-174(2), Florida Statutes.
The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
McCORD and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCLAIN v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 416 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…that the Commission’s action denying review is not final agency action that is appealable. Appellee relies on Canter v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 409 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), and Hall v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 408 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We find that those cases are not applicable to § 947.173(1) review requests of Commission biennial action. In both Canter and Hall, supra, the inmates had sought and received § 947.173 reviews of the establishment of their PPRD…
-
Bizzigotti v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 410 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…f convictions more than ten years old as a negative incident of parole prognosis, and a possible reason for overriding the salient factor score under Rule 23-19.04(l)(h). See footnote 5, supra. . See Hall v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 408 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and Canter v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 409 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed…