OLIVER
v.
FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW
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.
A petition for writ of certiorari challenging a commission's discretionary decision to suspend a presumptive parole release date is properly denied because the petitioner failed to establish a clear legal right to mandamus relief.
[1] A mandamus complaint challenging a discretionary administrative decision does not state a basis for relief, as mandamus requires the defendant to perform a ministerial du…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 trial court could not have entertained the present mandamus complaint in a review capacity”
Concurring opinion noting that the trial court did not render the order in a quasi-judicial review capacity, making certiorari review procedurally improper.
Oliver, proceeding pro se, filed a mandamus complaint challenging the Florida Commission on Offender Review's suspension of his presumptive parole rel…
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 Discretionary Decision cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Court denies the petition for writ of certiorari on the merits.
ROBERTS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur; TANENBAUM, J., concurs in result with opinion. _____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
TANENBAUM, J., concurring in result. This court incorrectly has recharacterized Oliver’s prisoner appeal as a certiorari petition, even though the trial court did not render the appealed order in its review capacity. Oliver filed a mandamus complaint challenging the commission’s suspension of his presumptive parole release date (“PPRD”). Cf. §§ 947.16(5), 947.172, 947.173(3), 947.1745, 947.18, Fla. Stat. That action did not come about as part of a quasi-judicial proceeding, so “the trial court could not have entertained the present mandamus complaint in a review capacity.” Estremera v. Fla. Comm’n on Offender Rev., 48 Fla. L. Weekly D434 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 22, 2023) (Tanenbaum, J., concurring) (citing Fla. Dep’t of Corr. v. Gould, 344 So. 3d 496, 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), rev. granted, SC22-1207, 2022 WL 17347630 (Fla. Dec. 1, 2022)). Indeed, the trial court, in denying the appellant’s request for relief, noted that there was no liberty interest at stake in connection with the PPRD. It, in turn, treated the complaint as a typical mandamus pleading that sought to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty to which the appellant claimed a clear legal right. The commission’s decision regarding the PPRD was discretionary, of course, so the trial court correctly concluded that the appellant failed to plead a facial basis for mandamus. The complaint should have been dismissed (instead of “denied”). At all events, though, our review here should be by appeal, not certiorari, and we should affirm the trial court’s final order. I concur in the disposition anyway—simply because, either way, we effectively deny the appellant any relief, which is the legally correct outcome. _____________________________
Edgar E. Oliver, pro se, Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Oliver v. Fla. Comm'n on Offender Review, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)
Authorities Cited
- Parker v. Fla. Dept. of Corr., 369 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
- Oliver v. Fla. Comm'n on Offender Review, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)