ALFREDDIE GRANT, PETITIONER,
v.
RON JONES, SUPERINTENDENT, G.C.I., AND FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
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 a parole violation must be willful to warrant revocation, and the petitioner's failure to immediately report was not willful.
[1] Parole revocation requires evidence that the parolee willfully violated a condition of parole.
[2] A parole violation is not willful when the parolee is unable to comply with a supervisor's instruction due to medication and lack of transportation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner failed to immediately report to his parole supervisor as instructed due to medication and inability to drive after a domestic dispute. His …
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 Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
Alfreddie Grant petitions this court for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to review the revocation of his parole by respondent Florida Parole and Probation Commission.
Petitioner was charged with violating condition ten of his probation, which stated that he must comply with all instructions given him by his parole supervisor, when, on March 28, 1984, he failed to immediately report to his supervisor upon her instruction to do so. On that date, petitioner had a domestic quarrel with his wife, following which petitioner’s parole supervisor spoke with petitioner on the telephone and requested that he immediately come to her office. Petitioner did not comply with the request, because he was on medication at the time and was unable to drive.
Petitioner’s parole supervisor, after waiting a reasonable time, went to petitioner’s home to ascertain why her summons had been ignored. She became satisfied with petitioner’s explanation and recommended against revocation of his parole. Petitioner’s version of the facts is uncontradicted. The violation was both insubstantial and unintentional.
Petitioner’s parole should not have been revoked absent evidence that he willfully violated a condition of parole. Shaw v. State, 391 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Chatman v. State, 365 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In Shaw, the appellant failed to timely submit a report to the probation office because he lacked transportation. The appellate court found insufficient evidence to support a finding that such violation of parole was willful. A similar situation is presented in the instant case, where petitioner was unable to drive and was forced to rely on other means of transportation. There is no showing that he willfully violated a condition of his parole.
We therefore grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and direct that petitioner be released from custody within a short time upon such reasonable conditions as may be imposed by the Commission.
GRANT THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and LETTS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCormick v. Makrim Salfity, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D891 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
-
Edwards v. State, 561 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…tion based on his failure to file a truthful report and for leaving the county without permission. We affirm. The appellant contends that the violations were neither substantial nor did sufficient evidence exist of willfulness. Cf. Grant v. State, 461 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Murvin v. State, 541 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). He claims that his assertion of gainful employment by Radio Shack in his monthly report was truthful, and that his first probation officer knew he regularly traveled out of th…
Authorities Cited
- Chatman v. State, 365 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Shaw v. State, 391 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)