WALTER MYERS, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION 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.
Walter Myers appealed the summary denial of his habeas corpus/mandamus petition challenging the Florida Parole and Probation Commission's decision to suspend his presumptive parole release date. The court reversed the summary denial, finding that Myers stated a prima facie case that the Commission improperly considered arrests without convictions in making its parole determination, which violates statutory guidelines emphasizing criminal record in recidivism prediction.
The court reversed the summary denial of the mandamus petition because Myers stated a prima facie case for relief. Mandamus is the proper remedy for challenging the Commission's refusal to set an effective parole release date, and the Commission must be required to reconsider parole in conformance with applicable statutes and administrative rules. The trial court may not order the prisoner's release but must require the Commission to reconsider without consideration of arrests that did not lead to convictions.
[1] Mandamus is the proper remedy to challenge a parole commission's refusal to set an effective parole release date.
[2] A circuit court reviewing a petition for writ of mandamus must determine if the parole commission complied with applicable statutes and administrative rules.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Objective parole criteria will be designed to give primary weight to the seriousness of the offender's present criminal offense and his past criminal record. In considering the risk of recidivism, practice has shown that the best predictor is prior record.”
Establishes the statutory standard for parole decisions, limiting focus to criminal record, not arrests.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMyers petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus or mandamus to challenge the Parole Commission's suspension of his presumptive parole release date and re…
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 Effective Parole Release Date cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, Judge.
Walter Myers appeals the circuit court’s summary denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus or mandamus, in which he sought review of the Florida Parole and Probation Commission’s decision suspending his presumptive parole release date (PPRD) and refusing to authorize an effective parole release date (EPRD). Because the complaint showed a prima facie ease for relief, we reverse the summary denial of the petition.
Mandamus is the proper remedy for challenging the Commission’s refusal to set an EPRD. On a petition for writ of mandamus, the circuit court must determine whether the Commission complied with the applicable statutes and administrative rules. The court cannot order the prisoner’s release; it can only require that the Commission reconsider parole in conformance with those rules and statutes. See Williams v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 625 So. 2d 926, 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
We find that appellant’s claim that the Commission considered prior arrests which did not lead to convictions in making its parole determination states a preliminary basis for relief. The Objective Parole Guidelines Act was designed to provide the Commission with the means to predict a potential parolee’s future recidivism:
Objective parole criteria will be designed to give primary weight to the seriousness of the offender’s present criminal offense and his past criminal record. In considering the risk of recidivism, practice has shown that the best predictor is prior record. (emphasis added).
§ 947.002(2), Fla. Stat. (1997)(emphasis added).
Mere arrests are generally not considered a part of a person’s “criminal record” in other criminal justice contexts and are accorded very little weight in the eyes of the law. Arrests without conviction are not scored under the sentencing guidelines. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.703(d)(15)(C). Arrests may not be considered as a reason for an upward departure sentence. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.703(d)(29). Arrests alone are not sufficient to constitute a violation of probation. See Hall v. State, 677 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Manigault v. State, 534 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Arrests, even for felony offenses, may not be used to impeach a witness’ credibility at trial. § 90.610, Fla. Stat. (1997). As a general rule, any mention at trial of prior arrests which did not result in convictions is clearly improper. See Thiefault v. State, 655 So. 2d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
Without deciding in this opinion whether arrests may properly be considered in making a parole decision, we find that the Commission should be required to respond to this issue.
Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of the petition for mandamus and remand so that the trial court may enter an alternative writ of mandamus requiring the Parole and Probation Commission to show cause why it should not be compelled to reconsider the eligibility of petitioner for parole without consideration of any prior arrests which did not lead to convictions.
On remand, and after the Commission responds to the alternative writ of mandamus, the trial court will be required to review the entire record considered by the Commission prior to entering its final order. See Johnson v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 639 So. 2d 209, 209-10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(holding that adequate review of the Commission’s action cannot be performed in the absence of the entire record relied on by the Commission); McCorvey v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 625 So. 2d 1296, 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GUNTHER, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 939 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…DCA 1993) receded from on other grounds, Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 703 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). A circuit court is required to review the record considered by FPC before entering its final order. See Myers v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm’n, 705 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); McCorvey v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 625 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court to challenge FPC’s decision. FPC filed a response and cited petitioner’s psychologic…
-
Aristarco Benitez v. State, 744 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…hat he received a citation was admissible as non-hearsay evidence, appellant only admitted to receiving a citation for speeding. The state failed to present any evidence that he was in fact speeding. Cf. Myers v. Florida Parole and Probation Comm’n, 705 So. 2d 1000, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We reverse the trial court’s finding that appellant violated condition 1-4 of the order of community control for lack of evidence. Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in finding three violations of conditio…
-
Welsch v. State, 823 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…from on other grounds, Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 703 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). A trial court is [*312] required to review the record considered by the Commission prior to entering its final order. See Myers v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm’n, 705 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); McCorvey v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 625 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The trial court failed to do so in this case. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order below. On remand the circuit court…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 625 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Manigault v. State, 534 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- McCORVEY v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 625 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Thiefault v. State, 655 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Johnson v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 639 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Hall v. State, 677 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)