EUGENE DUCKWORTH, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
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 by denying Duckworth's habeas corpus petition without an order to show cause where he adequately alleged that the hearing examiner failed to subpoena two material witnesses for his conditional release revocation hearing.
A habeas corpus petition challenging conditional release revocation must proceed to an order to show cause when the petitioner adequately alleges that requested witnesses were not subpoenaed and their testimony would have been relevant and material.
[1] A habeas corpus petitioner challenging conditional release revocation states a sufficient basis for an order to show cause by alleging in a sworn petition that requested…
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 intelligenceEugene Duckworth petitioned for habeas corpus challenging the revocation of his conditional release supervision, alleging that the hearing examiner fa…
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 Right To Call Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We conclude that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law when it denied Eugene Duckworth’s petition for writ of habeas corpus without issuing an order to show cause. Duck-worth challenged the revocation of his conditional release supervision, and alleged in his sworn petition that the hearing examiner failed to subpoena two witnesses he requested for the revocation hearing. In addition, he adequately alleged a basis for concluding that the testimony of these witnesses would have been relevant and material. The allegations of the petition were thus sufficient to require the issuance of an order to show cause. Cf. Holcomb v. Department of Corrections, 609 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (inmate alleging denial of right to call witnesses in disciplinary hearing should identify the requested witnesses and provide a brief statement of what their testimony would have been); Kendrick v. Florida Parole Commission, 855 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (sworn allegations concerning absence of subpoenaed witness at conditional release revocation hearing sufficient to warrant order to show cause). Accordingly, the order of the circuit court summarily denying the petition is hereby quashed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
BOOTH, VAN NORTWICK and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duncan v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 939 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…f release). Under these circumstances, the circuit court’s failure to issue an order to show cause before entertaining the merits of petitioner’s claims constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. See Duckworth v. Dep’t of Corr., 867 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Accordingly, the order summarily denying Duncan’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is quashed, and the matter is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent herewith. WOLF, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur…
-
Reyes v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 935 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…. Under these circumstances, the circuit court’s failure to issue an order to show cause before adjudicating the merits of petitioner’s claims amounts to a departure from the essential requirements of law. See Duckworth v. Department of Corrections, 867 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is GRANTED, the order summarily denying the amended petition is QUASHED, and the matter is REMANDED to the circuit court for further proceedings. ERVIN, POLSTON, and HAWKES,…
Authorities Cited
- Holcomb v. Dep't OF Corr., 609 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Head v. State, 855 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Kendrick v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 855 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)