WILLIAM K. HEARD, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT
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.
William K. Heard challenged a circuit court order upholding revocation of his parole. The appellate court found the circuit court departed from essential requirements of law by treating his habeas corpus petition as a mandamus petition (requiring a filing fee) and by exercising jurisdiction over a matter that belonged in a different judicial circuit.
A habeas corpus petition challenging parole revocation must be filed in the circuit court with jurisdiction over the county where the inmate is currently incarcerated. Such petitions are constitutionally exempt from all court costs and filing fees. The circuit court improperly treated Heard's habeas petition as a mandamus petition and lacked jurisdiction since Heard was incarcerated in Hamilton County (Third Judicial Circuit).
[1] A petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the revocation of parole is constitutionally exempt from all court costs and filing fees.
[2] A circuit court departs from the essential requirements of law when it treats a habeas corpus petition as a petition for a writ of mandamus and requires a filing fee.
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“An inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is properly filed in the circuit court having jurisdiction over the county in which the inmate is currently incarcerated.”
Establishes the proper jurisdiction for habeas corpus petitions by incarcerated inmates.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam K. Heard filed a petition challenging the revocation of his parole by the Florida Parole Commission. At the time of filing, Heard was incarcer…
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 Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William K. Heard challenges, in a petition for a writ of certiorari, an order of the circuit court upholding the revocation of his parole by the Florida Parole Commission. We conclude that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by 1) treating Heard’s habeas corpus petition as a petition for a writ of mandamus and requiring him to pay a filing fee, and 2) exercising jurisdiction over Heard’s habeas petition even though Heard is incarcerated in a county within a different judicial circuit.
An inmate’s challenge to the revocation of his early release from prison under the terms and conditions of an early release program is properly filed in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, see Gillard v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 784 So. 2d 1214, 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), and “a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ... is constitutionally exempt from all court costs and filing fees.” Stanley v. Moore, 744 So. 2d 1160, 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Thus, the circuit court clearly departed from the essential requirements of law in treating Heard’s petition as a petition for a writ of mandamus and collecting a filing fee in connection with the petition.
An inmate’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is properly filed in the circuit court having jurisdiction over the county in which the inmate is currently incarcerated. See Gillard 784 So. 2d at 1215. Thus, because Heard is, and was at the time he filed his petition, incarcerated in Hamilton County, jurisdiction over the petition was properly in the Third Judicial Circuit. In cases such as this where the circuit court has improperly exercised jurisdiction over a habeas corpus petition, the appropriate disposition is for the circuit court’s order disposing of the inmate’s petition without jurisdiction to be quashed and the case remanded with directions that the circuit court immediately transfer the inmate’s petition to the circuit court having jurisdiction over the correctional facility in which the inmate is currently housed. See Stanley, 744 So. 2d at 1161; see also Gillard, 784 So. 2d at 1215; Yeik v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 776 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
We, therefore, quash the circuit court’s order and remand this case to the circuit court with directions to refund the filing fee paid by Heard in accordance with the case management order, and to immediately transfer Heard’s petition to the circuit court of the Third Judicial Circuit in and for Hamilton County, Florida.
MINER, WOLF and Van NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 951 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…erly presented by petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the trial court further erred in converting the petition to one seeking non-habeas relief. See Knowles v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 846 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heard v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 811 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The parole commission suggests that the trial court nonetheless reached the correct result in light of section 95.11(5)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), which provides that a petition for extraordinary writ other than one challengi…
-
Richardson v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 924 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…petitions for habeas corpus or mandamus filed in the circuit court. See Griffith v. Fla. Parole & Probation Comm’n, 485 So. 2d 818, 820 (Fla.1986); Mabrey v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 858 So. 2d 1176, 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Heard v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 811 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Sheley, 703 So. 2d at 1205. As was noted in the Sheley decisions, see 720 So. 2d at 217-18 and 703 So. 2d at 1205-06, the Florida system of appellate review was not intended to afford an inmate both the right to full review on t…
-
Cooper v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 924 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ays of rendition of the order to be reviewed. Although the trial court incorrectly converted appellant’s habeas petition into a mandamus petition, see Knowles v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 846 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heard v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 811 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), the court properly denied the petition as untimely. § 95.11(5)(f), Fla. Stat. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. However, we reverse the trial court’s order imposing a lien on appellant’s inmate trust account…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stanley v. Moore, 744 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Gillard v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 784 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Yeik v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 776 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Joeneal R. Stallworth v. State, 776 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)