DAVID LEWIS, 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.
David Lewis challenged the revocation of his parole by filing a habeas corpus petition in Polk County Circuit Court (proper venue), but the court granted the Parole Commission's motion to change venue to Leon County. The appellate court reversed, holding that only courts in the circuit where the prisoner is incarcerated have territorial jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions challenging parole revocation.
No. The court held that a habeas corpus petition challenging parole revocation must be filed in the county where the prisoner is incarcerated, and only courts in that circuit have territorial jurisdiction to entertain such petitions. The Leon County court therefore lacked jurisdiction.
[1] A petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a parole revocation must be filed in the county where the prisoner is incarcerated.
[2] A petition for a writ of mandamus is the proper method for challenging a presumptive parole release date.
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“a habeas petition challenging a parole revocation must be filed in the county where the prisoner is incarcerated”
Establishes the jurisdictional rule that determines proper venue for parole revocation challenges
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLewis filed a habeas corpus petition in Polk County Circuit Court challenging insufficient evidence supporting his parole revocation. The Polk County …
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 Territorial Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse and remand the order denying appellant’s petition for a "writ of habeas corpus because the Circuit Court in and for Leon County, in the Second Judicial Circuit, did not have territorial jurisdiction to rule on such petition.
Appellant, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation of his parole, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit in Polk County. This was the proper venue, as appellant was incarcerated in Polk County. § 79.09, Fla. Stat.; see Ruiter v. Wainwright, 249 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2 Dist. DCA 1971). The Circuit Court in Polk County, however, granted the Parole Commission’s motion for change of venue, which was premised on the incorrect theory that since the Commission is situated in Leon County, venue is proper there.
After ordering a response from the Commission, the Leon County Circuit Court dis missed the petition as an abuse of the writ. Appellant already had filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Circuit Court of Leon County, challenging his presumptive parole release date. The petition had been denied on the merits. The court below ruled that the matters raised in this case could have and should have been raised in the mandamus action.
That ruling is incorrect because appellant was required to file separate actions. As noted above, a habeas petition challenging a parole revocation must be filed in the county where the prisoner is incarcerated. On the other hand, the proper method of challenging a presumptive parole release date is by a petition for a writ of mandamus, filed in the Circuit Court of Leon County. See Porter v. Florida Parole & Probation Comm’n, 603 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
The Parole Commission argues that the issue of venue is moot because appellant did not appeal the change of venue to the Second Judicial Circuit in the Second District Court of Appeal. Even were we to accept this argument, however, we find that the order below must be reversed because the Circuit Court of Leon County does not have territorial jurisdiction over this action. See Campbell v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 630 So. 2d 1210, 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 639 So. 2d 976 (Fla.1994), vacated, 514 U.S. 1094, 115 S.Ct. 1819, 131 L.Ed.2d 742, reinstated, 657 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 533, 133 L.Ed.2d 438 (1995). As long as appellant is incarcerated in the Tenth Judicial Circuit, only a court in that circuit has the power to entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and therefore is the only court with territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of his claim.
For that reason, we decline to address the merits of appellant’s claim; and thus reject the Parole Commission’s request that we engage in a harmless-error analysis. As this is a matter for the courts of another district, we believe it would be improper for this court to in any way comment on the meritoriousness of appellant’s claim.
Likewise, we reject the Parole Commission’s fallback position that the matter be remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition without prejudice to refile in the appropriate court. As appellant already filed the matter in the proper court, and the Parole Commission improperly moved to change venue, we feel that result is unjust and inappropriate.
For the reasons expressed herein this matter is remanded to the Circuit Court of Leon County with instructions that the court transfer the petition back to the Tenth Judicial Circuit.
MINER, ALLEN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Fannings Johnson v. Fla. Parole Comm'n & James V. Crosby, Jr., 841 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…Parole and Probation Comm’n, 436 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Petitioner’s previous mandamus petition sought to challenge the PPRD and was properly filed in the circuit court where the agency was headquartered. See Lewis v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 697 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The habeas corpus petition challenged the parole revocation and was properly filed in the county where petitioner was detained. See Campbell v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 630 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) rev. denied, 639 So. 2d 9…
-
Stanley v. Moore, 744 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…1997); Alday v. Singletary, 719 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), we conclude that, in the interests of expediency, this case should be remanded to the circuit court for immediate transfer to the appropriate court. See Lewis v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 697 So. 2d 965, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(revers-ing order denying habeas corpus petition filed in wrong court and remanding with directions that circuit court transfer petition to court having jurisdiction over correctional facility in which prisoner was housed). W…
-
Sullivan v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 920 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…he circuit court also properly determined that the mandamus petition must be filed in the Leon County Circuit Court, where the Commission is headquartered, unless the home venue privilege is waived by the Commission. See Lewis v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 697 So. 2d 965, 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The circuit court then dismissed the petition without prejudice to Sullivan’s right to file a mandamus petition in the Leon County Circuit Court. Rather than dismissing the petition, the circuit court should have transfer…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Campbell v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 657 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Ruiter v. Louie L. Wainwright, 249 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Fla. Peach Corp. v. Barron, 249 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- MacRAE v. State, 630 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Campbell v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 630 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Chassin v. Nysa-Ila Med. & Clinical Servs. Fund, 514 U.S. 1094 (U.S. 1995)
- Gracey v. Reigle, 514 U.S. 1094 (U.S. 1995)
- Porter v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 603 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)