STANLEY THOMAS, 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.
Stanley Thomas challenged the revocation of his conditional release by the Florida Parole Commission. The court granted his certiorari petition, finding that his conditional release was illegally revoked because he was never properly ordered to complete the drug treatment condition upon which the revocation was based.
Thomas's conditional release cannot legally be revoked for failure to complete a condition that was neither ordered by the court nor properly delegated to and ordered by his CRO. The principle established in probation revocation cases applies equally to conditional release revocations.
[1] A writ of habeas corpus is a proper procedural vehicle to challenge the revocation of conditional release.
[2] Certiorari review is available for a circuit court's denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
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“Thomas's conditional release cannot legally be revoked for his failure to complete a condition that was neither ordered by the court nor properly delegated to and ordered by his CRO.”
States the core legal principle governing the revocation of conditional release
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas's conditional release was revoked solely because he failed to complete payment for drug treatment that he voluntarily entered. Although the con…
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 Miscarriage Of Justice cases and more on FLexlaw
CANADY, Judge.
Stanley Thomas, whose conditional release was revoked by the Parole Commission, seeks certiorari review of the circuit court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that Thomas is entitled to relief.
Thomas properly challenged the revocation of his conditional release by seeking a writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court. See Mabrey v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 858 So. 2d 1176, 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). And he now properly seeks certiorari review of the circuit court’s denial of his habeas petition. See id. Thomas is entitled to relief only if he can show that the circuit court “did not afford procedural due process or departed from the essential requirements of law.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla.2003). There is a departure from the essential requirements of law “only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Id.; see also Mabrey, 858 So. 2d at 1181.
Thomas’s conditional release was revoked solely because he did not complete payment for drug treatment that he voluntarily entered. Although the conditional release order did allow his control release officer (CRO) to order Thomas into drug treatment, the record documents, including the summary of the revocation hearing, do not indicate that Thomas was in fact-ordered into drug treatment.
Thomas’s conditional release cannot legally be revoked for his failure to complete a condition that was neither ordered by the court nor properly delegated to and ordered by his CRO. See Narvaez v. State, 674 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that it was fundamental error to revoke defendant’s probation because he violated a condition with which he was never ordered to comply). This principle of law governing revocation of probation is equally applicable to revocation of conditional release. In not following Narvaez, the trial court “violated a clearly established principle of law,” and a “miscarriage of justice” was the result. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d at 889.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari. We quash the circuit court’s order and remand with directions that Thomas’s petition for habeas corpus be granted and his conditional release reinstated.
Petition granted; remanded with directions.
STRINGER and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Collins v. Hendrickson, 371 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (M.D. Fla. 2005)…limitations on its authority to rescind parole) (citations omitted) (quoting Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 482, and citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973)). See also Thomas v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 872 So.2d 339, 340 (finding that principles of law applicable to probation are equally applicable to revocation of control release). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that “liberty interests of prisoners that are protected by the [F]ourteenth [AJmendment ‘a…
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Keely Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2003)
- Narvaez v. State, 674 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Mabrey v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 858 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)