HARRY K. MOORE, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE AND 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.
The Commission may correct an obvious clerical mistake or computation error in a presumptive parole release date calculation.
The Commission initially calculated Moore's presumptive parole release date (PPRD) without deducting time Moore was out of custody on escape charges. …
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
MILLS, Judge.
We affirm the Commission’s amendment to Moore’s presumptive parole release date (PPRD).
His PPRD was initially established as December 14, 1982. This calculation occurred when the examiner inadvertently failed to deduct the time Moore was out of custody on escape when calculating his time served in custody. The initial worksheet clearly shows that Moore was out of custody for 23 months and 15 days and that he had pending escape charges in Palm Beach County.
On the biennial review of Moore’s PPRD, the Commission discovered the clerical error and amended his PPRD to properly reflect the correct amount of time in custody.
The Commission may correct an obvious clerical mistake or computation error. See Wickham v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 410 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). To hold otherwise would force the Commission to violate its own rules. Florida Administrative Code Rule 23-19.-02(1) states that time on escape shall not count for time in custody.
Moore has not been prejudiced by the Commission’s action. The Commission initially determined Moore should serve 113 months before being paroled. This calculation has not changed. The Commission’s action properly corrected Moore’s time in custody to reflect actual time served.
Had the computation error resulted in an incorrect date being established, resulting in a longer period of incarceration than determined, we, likewise, would approve the correction to result in the proper date being established.
McCORD and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zatler v. State, 457 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…hat the Commission may correct a clerical mistake or computational error made in setting the prisoner’s PPRD. Priester v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 434 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Moore v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 415 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In this case, it is not entirely clear from the record before us, why Zatler’s PPRD was changed from October 30, 1984 to October 29, 1985. It may be that a computational error was originally made and the Commission was merely c…
-
Priester v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 434 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…the authority to correct an obvious clerical mistake or computational error in the setting of an inmate’s PPRD, and such correction should be made on proper application to the Commission. See Moore v. Florida Parole [*1009] and Probation Commission, 415 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We affirm. MILLS, BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Wickham v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 410 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)