RONALD BRITT, 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.
Britt appealed a parole determination, challenging the Florida Parole & Probation Commission's application of amended parole guidelines as violating ex post facto principles. The court affirmed, holding that procedural parole guidelines may be modified after a crime is committed because they reflect evolving administrative procedures rather than fixed statutory penalties.
No ex post facto violation occurs when the Parole Commission applies amended objective parole guidelines to determine parole eligibility, because such guidelines are procedural in nature and statute § 947.165(2) requires the commission to periodically revise its procedures based on experience to achieve statutory purposes, rather than fixing rules from the time of the offense.
[1] Applying amended objective parole guidelines to set a presumptive parole release date does not violate ex post facto laws when the guidelines are procedural and reflect o…
[2] Objective parole guidelines are administrative responses to legislative restraints on parole discretion and are subject to revision based on experience.
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“The objective parole guidelines are the administrative agency's response to the legislative restraints on the commission's discretion in setting parole under the statutory standard, i.e., when there exists a reasonable probability for law abiding conduct compatible with the welfare of society and the parolee.”
Establishes that parole guidelines are procedural tools implementing legislative policy, not fixed penalties
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBritt was convicted and incarcerated, and his presumptive parole release date was set under objective parole guidelines. The commission applied a matr…
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 Objective Parole Guidelines Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Britt contends the commission violated state and federal constitutional proscriptions against ex post facto laws by applying a matrix time range for his parole release under the rule in effect at the time his presumptive parole release date was set rather than the rule in effect when he committed his crime. We affirm.
In Lopez v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 410 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the appellant had been convicted and was incarcerated at the time the first objective parole guidelines became effective, but was not interviewed until after the first amendments to the guidelines which increased the matrix time range for Lopez’s crime. We held that under those circumstances there was no ex post facto violation in applying the amended guidelines. The circumstances now presented do not require a holding contrary to Lopez.
The objective parole guidelines are the administrative agency’s response to the legislative restraints on the commission's discretion in setting parole under the statutory standard, i.e., when there exists a reasonable probability for law abiding conduct compatible with the welfare of society and the parolee. § 947.165 and § 947.18, Florida Statutes (1979). Section 947.165(2) requires the commission to review its procedures periodically and make any revisions considered necessary “by virtue of experience” in order to achieve the statutory purposes. Thus, the procedure in effect when a presumptive parole release date is set is required to reflect continuing experience in accomplishing the stated objectives. The statute therefore clearly does not contemplate that such rules shall be fixed from the time a prisoner’s crime was committed. See Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981). The decision in Lopez is accordingly consistent with the terms of § 947.165(2) in emphasizing the procedural nature of the objective parole guidelines as opposed to the fixed statutory prescription scrutinized in Weaver. Changes in such procedural guidelines have not ordinarily been constrained by the ex post facto clause. Cf., Overfield v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 418 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1982).
Accordingly, appellant’s presumptive parole release date is affirmed.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
MAY v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 424 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…h Cir.1982), but in apparent conflict with three cases issued by this court from which I would now recede. In Overfield v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 418 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Britt v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 417 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and Hurst v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 418 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), this court held that it is not a violation of the ex post facto clause for the Commission to use a matrix guideline which is not in effect…1 / 2
-
Arnett v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 420 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…matrix in effect at the time of interview when the crime was committed prior to enactment of parole guidelines, Lopez v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 410 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Britt v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 417 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Overfield v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 418 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1982). The sufficiency of the notice given Arnett before the amendment of the objective parole guidelines is an issue for rule challenge proce…
-
Jordan v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 423 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…ver, the commission did not violate the ex post facto clause in applying the new, harsher matrix time ranges here, even though Jordan committed the robbery long before the new rules went into effect. Britt v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 417 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Overfield v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 418 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, this cause is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions that the commission set a new presumptive p…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1981)
- Lopez v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 410 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Overfield v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 418 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)