BERNARD BILLIE, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, APPELLEE
BERNARD BILLIE, APPELLANT,
FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, APPELLEE
423 So. 2d 553
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1982)
Caution
Cited by 12 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. Overfield v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 418 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur. SHIVERS, J., dissents, with Written Opinion.
Dissent
SHIVERS, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent from the majority opinion holding that the retroactive application of the 1981 objective parole guidelines in this case is not a violation of the ex post facto clause. Preliminarily, two facts should be noted. First, although all of appellant’s crimes were committed prior to the enactment of the 1981 objective parole guidelines, his PPRD was computed on the basis of the 1981 guidelines. Second, the 1981 guidelines uniformly raise the matrix time ranges. In view of these facts, it is clear that the retroactive application of the 1981 guidelines in this case violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981), Welsh v. Mizell, 668 F. 2d 328 (7th Cir.1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Kearse v. State, 605 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We have held that a trial court’s discretion is abused if the court fails to provide the defendant with the opportunity to explain why he or she objects to counsel or fails to conduct the above inquiries. See Parker v. State, 423 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). See also Brooks v. State, 555 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Williams v. State, 532 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In the instant case, appellant requested that his court-appointed counsel be dismissed, and, in doing so, asse…
-
Williams v. State, 427 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…ng the assistance of an attorney he does not want or having no attorney, the court has the following obligations: 1. Inform the defendant of the benefits he would relinquish and the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. Parker v. State, 423 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). 2. If the defendant still insists on dismissing his court-appointed counsel, the court must determine whether the defendant has made his choice voluntarily and intelligently. Parker v. State. 3. If it is established that the d…
-
Kott v. State, 518 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…6 S.E. 2d 8 (1986) (although generally it is better practice to inquire as to defendant’s objections to court-appointed counsel, trial court is not required to conduct a detailed hearing). The case on review is distinguishable from Parker v. State, 423 So. 2d 553 (Fla. [*959] 1st DCA 1982), and Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), relied upon by appellant. In Nelson, after the defendant had requested the dismissal of appointed counsel, the motion was granted without inquiry, and the defendant…
Previewing 3 of 12 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)
- Overfield v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 418 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Welsh v. Mizell, 668 F.2d 328 (7th Cir. 1982)