FRANCIS JARAD SCHULTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE & 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.
Appellant challenges his presumptive parole release date determination by the Florida Parole & Probation Commission. The court found one error (improper offense of commitment that the Commission conceded) but rejected appellant's ex post facto challenge to the use of current parole guidelines.
The court found the Commission erred in using an improper offense of commitment (which the Commission conceded), but rejected the ex post facto challenge because the use of current guidelines in making a de novo presumptive parole release date determination is not impermissible ex post facto.
[1] A presumptive parole release date determination is not erroneous when based on current parole guidelines, even if amended after the offense of commitment, when the determ…
[2] A parole commission errs by utilizing an improper "offense of commitment" in determining a presumptive parole release date.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the Commission has conceded error in this regard”
Establishes that the Commission acknowledged error in using an improper offense of commitment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Schultz had an initial presumptive parole release date determined under then-current guidelines. He subsequently escaped from confinement. U…
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 Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a presumptive parole release date determination which we find to be without error except insofar as an improper “offense of commitment” was utilized; the Commission has conceded error in this regard.
Appellant also contends that the Commission erred by utilizing current parole guidelines which were not in effect at the time appellant committed his offense. This court has previously held that such use of current guidelines is not an impermissible ex post facto application of law. See e.g., Britt v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 417 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Lopez v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 410 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); also see May v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 424 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In the present case appellant’s presumptive parole release date was initially determined in accordance with then-current guidelines which have since been amended. Appellant thereafter escaped from confinement, and upon reconfinement appellant’s previous presumptive parole release date was vacated and a new presumptive parole release date was determined in accordance with the amended guidelines. Insofar as this is essentially a de novo presumptive parole release date determination the rationale of Britt and Lopez applies, and the Commission did. not err by using current amended guidelines.
In accordance with the Commission’s concession of error as to the use of an improper “offense of commitment,” the order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for a proper determination of appellant’s presumptive parole release date.
ERVIN and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lopez v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 410 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Britt v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 417 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- MAY v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 424 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)