HORACE J. SAWYER, 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.
The circuit court erred in denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus because it did not apply the correct law in upholding the Parole Commission's revocation.
Petitioner's conditional release supervision was revoked by the Parole Commission after an arrest for drug charges that were ultimately dismissed. The…
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 Conditional Release Supervision cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks review of the circuit court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He contends that the circuit court did not apply the correct law in upholding the Parole Commission’s revocation of his conditional release supervision. We agree and grant the petition.
Soon after being released on conditional release supervision, petitioner was arrested for possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. Although the charges were dismissed, the Parole Commission charged petitioner with violating the conditions of his supervision. After a violation hearing, the parole examiner found that petitioner did not violate the conditions of his supervision and recommended reinstating his conditional release supervision. However, the Parole Commission rejected the examiner’s findings and recommendation and revoked petitioner’s supervision.
Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court. The circuit court denied the petition, holding that sufficient evidence supported the Parole Commission’s finding that petitioner had violated his supervision. Petitioner now argues that the circuit court did not apply the correct law in reaching this determination. In light of our recent opinion in Tedder v. Florida Parole Commission, 842 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), we agree and quash the circuit court’s order. As in Tedder, we remand this case to the circuit court for reconsideration.
BOOTH, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quietwater Ent., Inc. v. Escambia Cnty., 890 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…bject of a special assessment. See Lake County v. [*528] Water Oak Mgmt. Corp., 695 So. 2d 667, 670 (Fla.1997); Collier County v. State, 733 So. 2d 1012, 1017-1018 (Fla.1999). Additionally, the Fifth District’s decision in Donnelly v. Marion County, 851 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), serves as persuasive authority that even “enhanced” law enforcement services do not directly benefit the property being burdened, despite expert testimony that enhanced law enforcement generally renders real property more valuab…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Tedder v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 842 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)