MICHAEL SWAIN, 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.
Michael Swain appealed the dismissal of his mandamus petition challenging the Florida Parole and Probation Commission's failure to apply a newly enacted Youthful Offender Matrix to his parole review. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Commission was not required to apply the matrix retroactively to inmates whose initial interviews predated the rule's effective date.
The court held that the Commission was not required to apply the Youthful Offender Matrix to Swain because the matrix applied only to initial interviews conducted after its effective date. Although the Commission was required to consider what effect the matrix would have had on the initial interview when formulating biennial review recommendations, it was not obligated to use the matrix as the basis for Swain's review.
[1] A Youthful Offender Matrix is to be used only when an inmate has been sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act or classified as a youthful offender for initial interview…
[2] A Parole and Probation Commission is not required to apply a newly enacted Youthful Offender Matrix to an inmate whose initial interview predates the rule's enactment.
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 intelligence“the Youthful Offender Matrix is to be used only when an inmate has been either sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act or classified by the Department of Corrections as a youthful offender, 'for initial interviews conducted subsequent to the effective date of this rule.'”
Establishes the limited temporal scope of the Youthful Offender Matrix's application
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSwain was sentenced in 1976 with an initial presumptive parole release date (PPRD) of June 12, 2001, which was reduced by six months at his 1981 bienn…
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 Administrative Rule Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellant appeals a final order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus against appellee, the Florida Parole and Probation Commission. We affirm.
Appellant was originally sentenced in 1976. A presumptive parole release date (PPRD) of June 12, 2001, was assigned by the Commission in 1979, and was later reduced by six months at appellant’s first biennial review hearing in 1981. Appellant’s second biennial review was set for September 1983. Prior to that date, the Commission adopted Rule 23-21.09(6), F.A.C., establishing a Youthful Offender Matrix. On June 29, 1983, three months prior to the scheduled second biennial review, a “special” review was conducted. Although the hearing examiner recommended the PPRD be reduced by sixty months due to appellant’s “good adjustment,” the Commission rejected the recommendation and set the third biennial review for 1985.
Appellant sought review of the Commission’s decision, pursuant to section 947.173, Florida Statutes, claiming (along with another issue not raised in this appeal) that the Commission erred in failing to apply the newly enacted Youthful Offender Matrix to appellant. Relief was denied. Appellant then filed a petition for writ of mandamus against appellee, raising the same issue. The petition was dismissed and this appeal ensued.
We affirm the dismissal of appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus and hold that the Commission was not required to apply the Youthful Offender Matrix to appellant.
It is clear from the notes of explanation following Rule 23-21.09(6) that the Youthful Offender Matrix is to be used only when an inmate has been either sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act or classified by the Department of Corrections as a youthful offender, “for initial interviews conducted subsequent to the effective date of this rule.” (emphasis supplied) The only guidance as to the use of the Youthful Offender Matrix in biennial reviews is contained in a Florida Parole and Probation Commission interoffice communication issued on January 26, 1988, stating:
Beginning February 1, 1983, all biennial interviews conducted on Youthful Offenders ... should contain the examiner’s observations relative to the established PPRD in light of the newly adopted Youthful Offender Matrix. If the examiner feels the original scoring would have resulted in an earlier PPRD with the use of the new matrix, such observation should be included and evaluated with all other “new information” in formulating the interview recommendation.
Appellant’s initial interview was conducted in 1979, approximately three and one half years prior to the enactment of Rule 23-21.09(6). We find no authority to support appellant’s argument that appellee was required to apply the Youthful Offender Matrix at the second biennial review hearing. According to the Commission’s interoffice communication, appellee was at most required to evaluate the effect the Youthful Offender Matrix would have had, had it been used at the initial interview, in formulating its biennial review recommendation. It is clear from the record that the effects of the new matrix were considered, but that the Commission disagreed with the examiner’s recommendation.
Accordingly, the order is AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, J., and TILLMAN PEARSON (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.