FREDERICK DORNAU, 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's reduction of Dornau's presumptive parole release date was not a violation of due process, as the hearing examiner's recommendation is not binding and no constitutionally protected liberty interest exists in Florida's parole procedures.
Dornau's presumptive parole release date (PPRD) was reviewed. The hearing examiner recommended a 48-month reduction, but the Commission only reduced i…
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.
Dornau’s presumptive parole release date (PPRD) came up for biennial review pursuant to Section 947.174(1), Florida Statutes (1981). Although the hearing examiner recommended reducing Dornau’s PPRD by 48 months, the Commission elected to reduce it by only 12 months. Dornau appeals the Commission’s action, and we affirm.
Dornau contends that the Commission violated his due process rights when it reduced his PPRD by only 12 months instead of the recommended 48 months. This contention is without merit because the hearing examiner’s recommendation is not binding on the Commission. Furthermore, Florida’s parole procedures create no constitutionally protected liberty interests. Hunter v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 674 F. 2d 847 (11th Cir.1982).
We shall not address Dornau’s remaining contention because they relate to the establishment of his initial PPRD. The scope of a biennial review hearing is limited to determining whether new information has been gathered since the initial interview which might affect the PPRD. Section 947.174(1), Florida Statutes (1981).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Broxson v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 425 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Johnson v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 423 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Myers v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 423 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Dornau v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 420 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); McClain v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 416 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and Gatto v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 415 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and LARRY G. SMITH…
-
Harvard v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 782 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…actors considered in establishing the first PPRD. By contrast, in the instant case, the Commission has set only one PPRD and the Commission is not bound by the recommendation of the parole examiner. See Dornau v. Florida Parole and Probation Comm’n, 420 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he was denied due process of law or that the circuit court applied the incorrect law. See Sheley v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1998). The petition for writ…
-
Maddox v. Lambdin, 547 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…mmission v. Paige, 462 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1985); Cook v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 423 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1218, 103 S.Ct. 1222, 75 L.Ed.2d 458 (1983); Dornau v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 420 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1983). HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hunter v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 674 F.2d 847 (11th Cir. 1982)