LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
JAMES LAMONT TAYLOR, 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 Florida Supreme Court dismissed a petition for review of a district court decision granting a writ of habeas corpus to James Lamont Taylor regarding his parole release date computation. Although the district court applied an incorrect legal standard by using habeas corpus instead of mandamus, the Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot because the error would not change the ultimate outcome and Taylor had already been released on parole.
The Court held that mandamus, not habeas corpus, is the appropriate remedy for challenging presumptive parole release dates before an effective parole release date has passed. However, the Court dismissed the petition for review because the error would not change Taylor's release outcome, he had already been released on parole, and the precedential effect of the error had been corrected by the subsequent Pannier decision.
[1] A writ of mandamus, not habeas corpus, is the appropriate remedy for challenging the computation of a presumptive parole release date.
[2] Habeas corpus is the proper remedy for challenging a presumptive parole release date only after the established effective parole release date has passed.
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 appropriate remedy for challenging presumptive parole release dates is by a writ of mandamus directed against the FPPC. See also Moore v. Fla. Parole & Probation Commission, 289 So.2d 719 (Fla. 1974). Habeas corpus would be the proper remedy only after an effective parole release date established pursuant to sections 947.174(6)(b) and 947.18, Florida Statutes (1981), has passed.”
Establishes the correct legal standard for remedies in parole release date disputes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Lamont Taylor sought a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the computation of his presumptive parole release date. The Fifth District Court of Ap…
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 Conflict Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
EHRLICH, Justice.
This is an appeal from a district court decision to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Taylor v. Wainwright, 418 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). We accepted jurisdiction based on apparent conflict with Moore v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 289 So. 2d 719 (Fla.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 935, 94 S.Ct. 2649, 41 L.Ed.2d 239 (1974), wherein we held that a writ of habe-as corpus was the incorrect remedy for an erroneously computed presumptive parole release date. We find that the Fifth District has receded from any potential conflict on this issue:
To the extent that Taylor may imply that the proper procedural attack upon the computation of a presumptive parole release date is by habeas corpus, we recede therefrom and reaffirm our holding in Hardy v. Greadington, 405 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), that the appropriate remedy for challenging presumptive parole release dates is by a writ of mandamus directed against the FPPC. See also Moore v. Fla. Parole & Probation Commission, 289 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1974). Habeas corpus would be the proper remedy only after an effective parole release date established pursuant to sections 947.174(6)(b) and 947.18, Florida Statutes (1981), has passed.
Pannier v. Wainwright, 423 So. 2d 533, 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Cf. Roberson v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 444 So. 2d 917 (Fla.1983).
Our concern in cases based on our conflict jurisdiction is the precedential effect of those decisions which are incorrect and in conflict with decisions reflecting the correct rule of law. Mystan Marine, Inc. v. Harrington, 339 So. 2d 200 (Fla.1976); Ansin v. Thurston, 101 So. 2d 808 (Fla.1958). We have, in the past, dismissed cases reflecting the correct rule of law, where the conflicting, incorrect cases have been eliminated as to precedential effect. Bailey v. Hough, 441 So. 2d 614 (Fla.1983) (conflicting case receded from in subsequent decision); Wackenhut Corp. v. Judges of District Court of Appeal, 297 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1974) (conflicting case reversed).
If the instant case were to reflect the correct rule of law, our task would be finished. However, as the district court appears to concede in Pannier, this case involves an incorrect rule of law. We still conclude that we should dismiss the petition pursuant to our discretionary authority. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We do so for several reasons. First, Pannier corrects the precedential effect the error in this case might have had. Second, petitioner Wainwright has consistently failed to present any argument that the outcome, Taylor’s release on parole, would be any different if the error were corrected. And third, the record shows no stay of the district court’s mandate, so Taylor presumably has been released pursuant to the writ. Thus, in the interests of judicial economy, we see no reason to consider a remand for proceedings which uncontestedly would achieve the outcome already accomplished. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, McDONALD and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 908 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2005)…ssent’s assertions, our jurisdiction in this matter is clear, and resolution of the conflict between the First and Third districts is not only proper, but it is necessary for purposes of uniformity of Florida law. See generally Wainwright v. Taylor, 476 So. 2d 669, 670 (Fla.1985) (noting that the Court’s concern regarding cases based on conflict jurisdiction is “the precedential effect of those decisions which are incorrect and in conflict with decisions reflecting the correct rule of law”). Returning to the…
-
Griffith v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 485 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1986)…ted to that situation existing at the time of Moore; judicial review is still available through the common law writs of mandamus, for review of PPRD’s, and habeas corpus, for review of effective parole release dates. See, e.g., Wainwright v. Taylor, 476 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1985). The issue at hand is slightly different: What becomes of cases pending at the time statutory jurisdiction is abolished? Again, the Rothermel court reached the correct conclusion — absent a savings clause preserving pending appeals, the…
-
Johnson v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 543 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…t courts were deprived of jurisdiction to consider an appeal of a PPRD. Jurisdiction in the district courts then, is only available through common law writs of mandamus for review of PPRDs. Griffith, 485 So. 2d at 820. See also Wainwright v. Taylor, 476 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1985); Hall v. Wainwright, 498 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Thomas v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 436 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Hansen v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 436 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). There…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Ansin v. Thurston, 101 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1958)
- Rayfield Moore v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 289 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1974)
- Sapp v. Haskins, 417 U.S. 935 (U.S. 1974)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Drew, 417 U.S. 935 (U.S. 1974)
- Roberson v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 444 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1983)
- Mystan Marine, Inc. v. Harrington, 339 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1976)
- Pannier v. Louie L. Wainwright, 423 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Taylor v. Louie L. Wainwright, 418 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Hardy v. Greadington, 405 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Bailey v. Hough, 441 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1983)