WILLIAM JOHNSON, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal dismissed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the Florida Parole and Probation Commission's suspension of the petitioner's presumptive parole release date, holding that circuit courts (not district courts) are the proper forum for such petitions following legislative amendments to the Administrative Procedure Act.
The district court lacks jurisdiction to hear mandamus petitions challenging presumptive parole release dates. Since the legislature abolished a prisoner's right to appeal such decisions in district courts, an extraordinary writ cannot be used to obtain what is not available by direct appeal. The proper forum is the circuit court, which has concurrent jurisdiction over mandamus petitions.
[1] A petition for writ of mandamus is the proper procedural vehicle for challenging the suspension of a presumptive parole release date.
[2] District courts lack jurisdiction to hear appeals of presumptive parole release dates following legislative amendments to the Administrative Procedure Act.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“since the legislature has specifically abolished a prisoner's right to appeal a PPRD in the district courts of appeal in chapter 120.52(10), the petitioner should not be allowed to seek by extraordinary relief what is not available by right of appeal.”
Establishes the core holding that extraordinary writs cannot circumvent statutory jurisdictional limitations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Johnson petitioned the Fourth District Court of Appeal for a writ of mandamus to challenge the Florida Parole and Probation Commission's suspe…
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 Common Law Writs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This petition for writ of mandamus was filed to challenge the Florida Parole and Probation Commission’s suspension of petitioner’s presumptive parole release date. We dismiss the petition without prejudice to the petitioner to file for relief in the circuit court.
The Florida Supreme Court addressed the history of review of the Florida Parole and Probation Commission’s actions in Griffith v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 485 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1986). Before 1981, presumptive parole release dates were reviewed by petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 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). With the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, the legislature in 120.68 provided for appeals of final administrative action to the district courts.
Section 120.52(10)(d), Florida Statutes (1981) exempted prisoners as parties for purposes of obtaining rule making administrative hearings section 120.54(16) or “substantial interest” administrative hearings section 120.57. In Roberson v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 444 So. 2d 917 (Fla.1983), the act was interpreted as not precluding prisoners from seeking judicial review of final Florida Parole and Probation Commission action, pursuant to 120.68.
In 1983, the legislature amended section 120.52(10) to read: “Prisoners shall not be considered parties in any other proceedings and may not seek judicial review under s. 120.68 of any other agency action.” Ch. 83-78, § 1, Laws of Fla. With this amendment, district 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).
Therefore, review of PPRDs set by the Florida Parole and Probation Commission are proper via the extraordinary writ of mandamus. Griffith v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission. See also Florida Parole and Probation Commission v. Dornau, 534 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
However, since the circuit courts have concurrent extraordinary writs jurisdiction with the district courts, we have concluded that the circuit court is the proper forum in which to file a petition for writ of mandamus to seek review of a PPRD. See London v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 471 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In doing so we rely upon the reasoning of the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1988) that an extraordinary writ may not provide jurisdiction to the district court in a matter over which it has no jurisdiction by way of direct appeal. In the Pettis case, the extraordinary writ of certiorari was in issue.
However we believe that the same reasoning applies to the extraordinary writ of mandamus. In Pettis, the Florida Supreme Court agreed with the Second District Court of Appeal in State v. Wilson, 483 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) in its rationale that the extraordinary writ of common law certiorari cannot be used to “obtain appellate review of an order that is only reviewable, if at all, by direct appeal.” In other words, since the legislature has specifically abolished a prisoner’s right to appeal a PPRD in the district courts of appeal in chapter 120.52(10), the petitioner should not be allowed to seek by extraordinary relief what is not available by right of appeal. This does not leave the petitioner without remedy, since the circuit court has jurisdiction over petitions for writ of mandamus. It does not even deprive him of his right of appeal, since the denial of a petition for writ of mandamus at the circuit court level is properly reviewed by appeal in the district court pursuant to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
For these reasons, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus, without prejudice to the petitioner to file for the same relief in the circuit court having jurisdiction over his place of incarceration.
HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1998)…SHAW, Justice. We have for review Sheley v. Florida Parole Commission, 703 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), wherein the district court certified conflict with Johnson v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 543 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We approve Sheley as explained below. The relevant facts are set forth in the district court opinion under review: [*217] The Parole Commission entered an order on July 16, 1…
-
Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 703 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…(Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The district courts of appeal subsequently decided that a petition for writ of mandamus seeking review of a Parole Commission order should be directed to the circuit court. See Johnson v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 543 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCÁ 1989); see also Jones v. Department of Corrections, 615 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Under the current practice then, a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court takes the place of an appeal. Our system of appellate review…
-
Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 625 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…erly reviewable by mandamus filed in an appropriate circuit court, with the right of appeal to the district court of appeal. Griffith v. Florida Parole and Probation Comm’n, 485 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1986); Johnson v. Florida Parole and Probation Comm’n, 543 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Zatler v. State, 457 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). With the statutory amendments to chapter 120 in 1981 eliminating review of PPRD decisions pursuant to section 120.68, “the situation has reverted to that situation existing a…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)
- Rayfield Moore v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 289 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1974)
- Griffith v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 485 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1986)
- 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)
- State v. Wilson, 483 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Hall v. Louie L. Wainwright, 498 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Thomas v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 436 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Louie L. Wainwright v. Taylor, 476 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1985)