RICHARD A. BURNS, APPELLANT,
v.
GENE HODGES, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1993-12-29
No. 93-01102
FRANK, C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
629 So. 2d 324 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1993)

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.


Holding

The trial court erred by failing to consider the applicable Florida Administrative Code rule for control release violation hearings when determining the need for appointed counsel.


Facts & Procedural History

Richard A. Burns petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing he was entitled to appointed counsel for a control release violation hearing. The tri…

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.


Opinion of the Court
BLUE, Judge.

BLUE, Judge.

Richard A. Burns raises several issues on appeal, only one of which has merit. He argues the trial court erred when it denied his petition for habeas corpus without considering the applicable rule pertaining to control release violation hearings. We agree and reverse.

Florida Administrative Code Rule 23-22-014 establishes the procedure for a ease-by-case determination of whether appointed counsel is required for a control release violation hearing. In virtually identical language, rule 23-23.011 requires the same determination for the conditional release program.' In its order, the trial court analyzed only the conditional release rule, and properly found it did not apply to the control release program. The court did not, however, consider the companion rule for the control release program.

We do not address the question of whether Burns can establish a right to counsel in his particular case. We reverse and remand only for the court to consider his petition in light of rule 23-22.014 relating to control release.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

FRANK, C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw