JOEL B. OVERFIELD, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed that applying an amended parole matrix rule to a prisoner does not violate ex post facto prohibitions because the Commission retains discretion to aggravate or mitigate the matrix time range.
Amendments to the parole matrix rule do not violate ex post facto constitutional proscriptions because the Commission retains discretionary authority to set release dates above or below the matrix range.
[1] Amendments to parole matrix rules do not constitute ex post facto violations when the sentencing commission retains discretionary authority to aggravate or mitigate the m…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOverfield was subject to a parole matrix time range set by the rule in effect when his presumptive parole release date was established, rather than th…
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 Sentencing Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.
Overfield contends the Commission violated state and federal-constitutional proscriptions against ex post facto laws by applying to him a matrix time range for parole release set by the rule in effect at the time of setting his presumptive parole release date rather than by the rule in effect when his crime occurred. We affirm.
Without extended discussion of whether amendments to the matrix rule constitute procedural changes not subject to ex post facto considerations, or are substantive changes, we cannot agree that such amendments necessarily increase punishment and are, therefore, illegal. The matrix time range does not automatically determine time served, and the Commission in its discretion may aggravate or mitigate the matrix time, setting a release date above or below the matrix, so long as it states its reasons with particularity. Secs. 947.-172(2), .165(1), Fla.Stat. (1981). See also Lopez v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 410 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). This process is to be contrasted with that addressed in Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981), where statutory changes in gain-time credits automatically reduced, without discretionary decision-making, the time to be served.
The Commission’s order establishing Overfield’s presumptive parole release date is accordingly AFFIRMED.
LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Britt v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 417 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…arole 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.…
-
MAY v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 424 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, in Welsh v. Mizell, 668 F. 2d 328 (7th 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 e…1 / 2
-
Arnett v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 420 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…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 proceedings, Canter v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 409 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 19…
Previewing 3 of 22 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)