JIMMY L. TUCKER, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE & PROBATION COMMISSION, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1982-08-18
No. 81-635
OTT, C. J., and HOBSON and SCHOON-OVER, JJ., concur.
417 So. 2d 1178 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1982) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner’s request for a writ of habeas corpus was denied by the circuit court, which held that it had no jurisdiction over the Florida Parole and Probation Commission’s determination of his release date. However, according to our decision in Lowe v. Florida Parole & Probation Comm’n, 416 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 30, 1982), the circuit court did have jurisdiction to review the commission’s action and provide relief if the prisoner demonstrated entitlement thereto.

We therefore reverse and remand for an appropriate determination, pursuant to Lowe.

OTT, C. J., and HOBSON and SCHOON-OVER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Lang v. State, 616 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
    …uld simply have been a reversal of the retention portion and a remand of the case to the trial court to give it an opportunity to justify its retention of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Young v. State, 406 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Mathis v. State, 417 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Brisco v. State, 417 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Rosa v. State, 412 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Sanders v. State, 400 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Because the trial court modified the retention portion of the sentence w…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw