ANDREW E. PURNELL, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENT
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.
Andrew Purnell sought a writ of habeas corpus claiming he was entitled to immediate release based on a presumptive parole release date (PPRD) of June 2, 1981, because the Florida Parole and Probation Commission failed to notify him of his PPRD within 45 days of his initial parole interview. The court denied the petition, holding that the Commission's later establishment of a different PPRD did not violate the statutory requirement.
The court held that petitioner was not entitled to the June 2, 1981 PPRD date and denied the habeas corpus petition. The Commission's establishment of a different PPRD did not violate § 947.16(4) because the Commission established a PPRD prior to the filing of the petition and did not indefinitely defer establishment of a PPRD.
[1] A presumptive parole release date recommended by hearing examiners is not binding on the Parole and Probation Commission if the Commission has already established a PPRD…
[2] The Parole and Probation Commission does not violate statutory requirements by establishing a presumptive parole release date more than 45 days after an initial parole in…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the rationale of James applies when the Parole and Probation Commission has set off indefinitely the establishment of an inmate's PPRD for an impermissible reason, such as the lack of a pre-sentence investigation report, and when the Commission has not yet set a date for that inmate.”
Establishes the narrow circumstances under which the James precedent applies and distinguishes this case from that holding.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePurnell received his initial parole interview on March 17, 1981, and the hearing examiners recommended a PPRD of June 2, 1981. The petition was filed …
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 Presumptive Parole Release Date cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
This petition for writ of habeas corpus alleges that petitioner is entitled to a presumptive parole release date (hereinafter PPRD) of June 2, 1981, the date recommended by the hearing examiners since the Florida Parole and Probation Commission failed to notify him of his PPRD within 45 days of his initial parole interview. See § 947.16(4), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the petitioner alleges that he is entitled to immediate release. For the reasons below, we find petitioner’s argument without merit and deny the petition.
On March 17,1981, petitioner received his initial parole interview and the hearing examiners recommended a PPRD of June 2, 1981. See § 947.172(2), Florida Statutes. The petition, filed more than 45 days after the initial interview, alleged that the Parole and Probation Commission had not yet established petitioner’s PPRD pursuant to § 947.16(4), Florida Statutes.
Accordingly, this court issued a show cause order to the Parole and Probation Commission. The response to that order indicates that on May 13, 1981, prior to the time this petition was filed, the Parole and Probation Commission had established petitioner’s PPRD as June 30, 1988. Subsequently, the Parole and Probation Commission determined that petitioner should not be released until November 28, 1995. See § 947.18, Florida Statutes.
Petitioner relies upon James v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 395 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), for the proposition that the June 2,1981, date recommended by the hearing examiner is binding on the Parole and Probation Commission.
Petitioner argues that the Parole and Probation Commission has violated § 947.16(4), Florida Statutes, and the rationale of James by applying aggravating factors more than 45 days after his initial interview. This argument is without merit. The rationale of James applies when the Parole and Probation Commission has set off indefinitely the establishment of an inmate’s PPRD for an impermissible reason, such as the lack of a pre-sentence investigation report, and when the Commission has not yet set a date for that inmate.
We note that neither of these two conditions exists in the present case. The Parole and Probation Commission did not defer indefinitely the establishment of petitioner’s PPRD, and the Commission had established a PPRD for petitioner prior to the filing of this petition.
Accordingly, petitioner’s reliance upon James is misplaced.
Petitioner’s remaining arguments are without merit. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
McCORD and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bienvenido Rodriguez v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 425 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…s PPRD for an impermissible reason, and where the Commission has not yet set a date for that inmate. Because Rodriguez was notified of his PPRD on 18 December 1981, his contention is without merit. Purnell v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 409 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). AFFIRMED. WIGGINTON, J., concurs. ERVIN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.…
Authorities Cited
- James v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 395 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)