WILLARD BROXSON, 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 Florida Parole Commission properly declined to reconsider alleged errors in establishing Broxson's parole date during a biennial review, and the court affirmed the Commission's action.
The Parole Commission may decline to address alleged errors in the establishment of a parole date during a biennial review proceeding.
[1] The Parole Commission may decline to reconsider alleged errors in the original establishment of a parole date when reviewing a presumptive parole release date on biennial…
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 intelligenceBroxson sought biennial review of his presumptive parole release date and requested that the Commission consider alleged errors committed two years ea…
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 Parole Commission Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Broxson appeals from the Parole Commission’s order refusing, upon biennial review of his presumptive parole release date, to consider alleged errors committed during the establishment of his parole date two years ago. Jurisdiction of this appeal was temporarily relinquished for the Commission to correct a clerical error. See McClain v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 416 So. 2d 1209, 1211 at fn. 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The special Commission action certified June 18, 1982, is affirmed. The Commission’s action declining to address issues raised in Broxson’s biennial review request, certified October 20, 1981, is otherwise affirmed. See Cook v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 423 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Sheets v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 423 So. 2d 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 and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
van Poyck v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 431 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…following his biennial interview in July 1982 of matters that were raised, or could have been raised, on appeal of his PPRD two years before. A biennial review may not be used for this purpose. See Broxson v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 425 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Cook v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 423 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Sheets v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 423 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). ERVIN, WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.…
-
Brown v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 427 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…This court previously has indicated that the commission need not address, on biennial or special review, matters that were or could have been raised at the time an initial PPRD was established. See Broxson v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 425 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) and cases cited. However, in Brown’s case the commission specifically addressed the issue raised by him in its special [*350] review order, and this court will determine whether the order is supported by the record.…
-
Collins v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 441 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…ents, we conclude that the contention now made is foreclosed because it is identical to the issue raised by Collins and considered by the Commission at his first section 947.173 review in 1979. See Broxson v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 425 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); McClain v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 416 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Gatto v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 415 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The Commission’s special action in reestablishing his…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Colli, 415 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Dornau v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 420 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- McCLAIN v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 416 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Elzie Cook v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 423 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Jethro Sheets v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 423 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Cleveland Myers v. The Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 423 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Theadell Deloach v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 423 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Johnson v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 423 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)