JOSEPH HENRY ROTH, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES CROSBY, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
Joseph Henry Roth, a prison inmate, challenged his presumptive parole release date set by the Florida Parole and Probation Commission through a habeas corpus petition in circuit court. The court of appeal affirmed the circuit court's denial of the petition, holding that the proper remedy for challenging a presumptive parole release date is a petition for mandamus, not habeas corpus, and that such petition must be filed in Leon County.
The appropriate remedy for challenging a presumptive parole release date is a petition for a writ of mandamus directed against the Commission, not habeas corpus. The mandamus petition must be filed in the Circuit Court for Leon County, where the Commission is headquartered, unless the home venue privilege is waived.
[1] A petition for a writ of mandamus, not habeas corpus, is the appropriate vehicle for challenging a presumptive parole release date.
[2] A petition for a writ of mandamus directed against the Florida Parole and Probation Commission must be filed in the Circuit Court for Leon County, where the Commission is…
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“the appropriate vehicle for challenging a presumptive parole release date is a petition for a writ of mandamus directed against the Commission”
Establishes the proper legal remedy for Roth's challenge to his parole date
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoth is an inmate at Polk Correctional Institution. In February 2000, the Florida Parole and Probation Commission established his presumptive parole r…
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 Home Venue Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
WALLACE, Judge.
Joseph Henry Roth is a prison inmate in the Polk Correctional Institution.
In February 2000, the Florida Parole and Probation Commission (the Commission) established his presumptive parole release date as June 2, 2011, a date significantly later than the date recommended by the hearing examiner. Roth sought review of the Commission’s order by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court for Polk County.1 However, the appropriate vehicle for challenging a presumptive parole release date is a petition for a writ of mandamus directed against the Commission. Griffith v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm’n, 485 So. 2d 818, 820 (Fla.1986) (contrasting mandamus with habeas corpus, which is the appropriate vehicle for challenging an effective parole release date).
The mandamus petition must be filed in the Circuit Court for Leon County, where the Commission is headquartered, unless the home venue privilege is waived. Lewis v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 697 So. 2d 965, 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
The circuit court correctly denied Roth’s petition without prejudice for Roth to file a petition for a writ of mandamus directed against the Commission.
Therefore, we affirm.2
Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur. . Our record is unclear as to whether Roth exhausted his administrative remedies pursuant to section 947.173, Florida Statutes (1999), which he was required to do before seeking review of the Commission's action in the circuit court. See Riddell v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrections, 538 So. 2d 132, 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
. We do not treat Roth’s timely filed notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari because appeal is the appropriate avenue for review of the circuit court's order in this case. Compare Green v. Moore, 777 So. 2d 425, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding that when a prisoner seeks review of an administrative action related to his incarceration and the circuit court decides the prisoner's petition on grounds other than the merits, an appeal is the proper avenue of review by the district court), with Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 720 So. 2d 216, 217-18 (Fla.1998) (holding that certiorari is the proper method to review a circuit court's order deciding the merits of a prisoner's petition seeking review of an action by the Commission).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cooper v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 924 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…the circuit court did not decide the prisoner’s petition for review of administrative action on the merits, we have reverted to treating this matter as an appeal. See Gibson v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 895 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Roth v. Crosby, 884 So. 2d 407, 408 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Green v. Moore, 777 So. 2d 425, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).…
-
Gibson v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 895 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…e proper method of obtaining review of its decision is by means of a petition for writ of mandamus filed in the circuit court in and for Leon County, Florida. Griffith v. Florida Parole & Prob. Comm’n, 485 So. 2d 818, 820 (Fla.1986); Roth v. Crosby, 884 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Lewis v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 697 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Williams v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 625 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Pannier v. Wainwright, 423 So. 2d 533, 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). We reverse the order dis…
-
Jones v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 48 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 2010)…vocation of his parole, which occurred in 1990. We redesignate the certiorari proceeding as an appeal, see Cooper v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 924 So. 2d 966, 967 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), rev. pending, No. SC06-1236 (Fla. June 21, 2006); Roth v. Crosby, 884 So. 2d 407, 408 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Green v. Moore, 111 So. 2d 425, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), and treat the petition as Jones’ initial brief. We summarily affirm, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a), concluding that the circuit court…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1998)
- Griffith v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 485 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1986)
- Green v. Moore, 777 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Lewis v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 697 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Riddell v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 538 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)