ALEXANDER HARVIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Article Ii, Section 3, Florida Constitution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal raises the question whether section 947.181, Florida Statutes (1989), which grants the Parole Commission the authority to impose restitution as a condition of parole, violates the separation of powers provision of the Florida Constitution. Article II, section 3, of the Florida Constitution provides: “The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.” Article IV, section 8(c), of the Florida Constitution, which deals with the executive branch of government, provides that a parole and probation commission shall be created by law and that the commission shall have the power to grant parole to persons under sentences of crime. Thus, the Parole Commission is an agency created within the executive branch,1 and the constitution gives it, not the courts, the power to make parole determinations. Therefore, it cannot be said that section 947.181 violates the separation of powers provision by delegating a judicial task to an administrative agency.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., concur. . § 20.32, Fla. Stat. (1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gray v. State, 791 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…to persons under sentences of crime. The Parole Commission is an agency created within the executive branch, see Fla. Stat. § 20.32 (1988), and the constitution gives it, not the courts, the power to make parole determinations. See Harvin v. State, 690 So. 2d 652, 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Supervised release under section 947.1405(6) is a Conditional Release program administered by the Parole Commission, which has been in effect for over ten years. See Rivera v. Singletary, 707 So. 2d 326, 326-27 (Fla.1998);…
-
Ancrum v. Fla. Comm'n on Offender Review (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…to exceed six years, of members of the commission shall be prescribed by law”); Mayes v. Moore, 827 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2002) (holding that the commission’s authority derives from the Florida Constitution, not the Florida Legislature); Harvin v. State, 690 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (same). See also Gibson v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 895 So. 2d 1291, 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), and cases cited (holding: “[T]he proper method of obtaining review of [the Commission’s] decision is by means of a petition for writ of…