DAVID WINCHIP, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, APPELLEE
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 court reversed the trial court's dismissal of a mandamus petition, holding that an inmate stated a sufficient claim by alleging the Parole Commission failed to identify specific information in his official record supporting its decision to suspend his parole release date.
An inmate's mandamus petition sufficiently states a cause of action when it alleges the Parole Commission failed to identify the specific information in his official record supporting its decision to suspend his presumptive parole release date.
[1] A mandamus petition challenging a Parole Commission decision to suspend an inmate's presumptive parole release date states a sufficient cause of action when it alleges th…
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 Commission must articulate with specificity the reasons for its decision and identify the information in 'the complete official record in the inmate's case' that supports those reasons”
Court cited Williams v. Florida Parole Commission to establish the standard for Parole Commission decision-making.
An inmate of the state correctional system filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the Parole Commission's decision to leave intact the su…
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 Parole Commission Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, an inmate of the state correctional system, seeks review of a final order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus on the ground that it “fail[ed] to state a cause of action which would entitle [him] to relief.” Appellant’s petition asserted that the Parole Commission’s decision to leave intact the suspension of his assigned presumptive parole release date, and its refusal to set an effective parole release date, failed to comply with applicable law because it failed to identify the information in his official record which supported the reasons given for the action. We agree with appellant that his petition was sufficient to state a prima facie case for mandamus relief. See Williams v. Florida Parole Commission, 625 So. 2d 926, 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (“the Commission must articulate with specificity the reasons for its decision and identify the information in ‘the complete official record in the inmate’s case’ that supports those reasons”), review denied, 637 So. 2d 236 (Fla.1994). Accordingly, the trial court should have issued an alternative writ of mandamus, directing the Parole Commission to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.630(d)(3). We reverse, and remand with directions that the trial court now do so.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 703 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…nal orders in mandamus actions against the Parole Commission are reviewable by appeal. See Williams v. Florida Parole Commission, 625 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 637 So. 2d 236 (Fla.1994); see, e.g., Winchip v. Florida Parole Commission, 691 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Bush v. Florida Parole Commission, 694 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). We continue to hold that a final order on a complaint for writ of mandamus is reviewable by appeal. However, we recede from our decisions to the extent that…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 625 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)