JACK A. GRIFFITH, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE & PROBATION COMM'N, RESPONDENT; BOBBY WRIGHT, PETITIONER, V. FLORIDA PAROLE & PROBATION COMM'N, RESPONDENT
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 court held that the district court's denial of jurisdiction for appeals filed within the Daniels grace period was erroneous, and remanded the cases for reconsideration.
Prisoners sought judicial review of parole release dates, filing appeals within a 30-day grace period established in Daniels v. Florida Parole & Proba…
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 Grace Period cases and more on FLexlaw
EHRLICH, Justice.
Prisoners, seeking judicial review of final action of respondent Florida Parole and Probation Commission in setting allegedly improper presumptive parole release dates, have filed with this Court petitions for writ of mandamus directing the First District Court of Appeal to entertain their appeals pursuant to Daniels v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 401 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), approved, Roberson v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 444 So. 2d 917 (Fla.1983). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla. Const. Documents filed with the petitions show that both appeals were filed with the district court on June 10, 1981, twenty-nine days after Daniels was filed and within the thirty-day grace period set forth in Dan iels. In Jordan v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 403 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the district court made clear that the Daniels grace period made judicial review available to prisoners with a pre-Daniels final order from the Commission. Id. at 592.
After the Jordan decision issued, petitioners and two other prisoners who had also sought belated appeal from final Commission action within the thirty-day grace period, sought to reinstate their appeals or, in the alternative, to file petitions for writ of mandamus. Though procedurally indistinguishable, petitioners’ motions were denied, the other two prisoners’ motions were granted.
In light of the delineation of jurisdiction in Daniels and Jordan and in light of the district court’s granting review to other petitioners similarly situated, the denial of jurisdiction appears to be error. We do not choose to issue the writ of mandamus at this time, however. Rather, we remand these notices of belated appeal and motions to reinstate appeal or alternate leave to file petition for writ of mandamus for reconsideration by the district court.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, McDONALD and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffith v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 485 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1986)…risdiction of his appeal. This Court held the dismissal appeared to be error and remanded to the district couid; for reconsideration, but we did not issue a writ of mandamus to the district court. Griffith v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 451 So. 2d 457 (Fla.1984) (Griffith II). On remand, the district court again dismissed the appeal, Griffith v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, No. AE-189 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 28, 1984) (order dismissing appeal and certifying question) (Griffith III), rely…
Authorities Cited
- Daniels v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 401 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Roberson v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 444 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1983)
- Hill v. State, 403 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)