JAMES A. MATHIS, 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.
Mathis challenged the revocation of his parole following a trespass conviction, seeking certiorari review of a habeas corpus denial. The court held that parole revocation requires a hearing officer's explicit factual finding that violations were willful, and because the record was silent on this critical finding, the trial court could not properly review the revocation under the correct legal standard.
The court held that only willful violations of substantial conditions justify parole revocation, that the hearing officer must make explicit factual findings on willfulness, and that the trial court must review whether competent substantial evidence supports those findings. Because the record was silent on whether the hearing officer found the violations willful, the trial court could not apply the correct legal standard and therefore could not properly review the revocation.
[1] A parole revocation requires a willful violation of a substantial condition of parole.
[2] Factual findings regarding the willfulness of a parole violation must be made by the hearing officer.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Only a willful violation of a substantial condition of parole or probation will justify revocation of parole or probation.”
Establishes the legal requirement that parole revocation must be based on willful violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMathis was sentenced to life imprisonment and released on parole in 1998. In 2004, he was arrested for trespass and entered a nolo contendere plea. He…
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
BROWNING, C.J.
Petitioner seeks certiorari review of the denial of his habeas petition under Sheley v. Florida Parole Commission, 703 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), aff'd, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1998). Because it is not clear that the law was followed, we grant the petition, quash the order below, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment, and released on parole in 1998. In 2004, he was arrested for trespass, to which he pled nolo contendere. As a result, he was charged with violating his parole by committing a new law offense and by changing his residence without first obtaining permission from his parole officer. Petitioner defended his parole revocation by presenting evidence that he absented himself from his residence and spent one night only on posted public property because his life was in danger. The hearing officer entered a recommended order providing that Petitioner be reinstated to parole.
The record is silent as to whether or not the hearing officer based his recommendation on a determination that the violation was not willful, or whether he was merely making a policy recommendation to the Parole Commission.
Nonetheless, the Parole Commission revoked Petitioner’s parole. Petitioner sought habeas relief, which was denied by the trial court on the reasoning that he had not shown that the Parole Commission abused its discretion or denied him due process of law.
On review of the petition for certiorari, this Court must determine “whether the circuit court afforded due process and whether the court observed the essential requirements of law.” Richardson v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 924 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (citations omitted). Only a willful violation of a substantial condition of parole or probation will justify revocation of parole or probation. See Van Wagner v. State, 677 So. 2d 314, 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). These findings are factual in nature. See Ellis v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 911 So. 2d 831, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
Therefore, they must be made by the hearing officer.
Accordingly, when reviewing parole revocation proceedings, the circuit court must determine whether the record contains competent substantial evidence to support the factual findings of the hearing officer. See Richardson, 924 So. 2d at 911.
Because it is not clear from either the hearing officer’s records or the Parole Commission’s order of revocation of parole whether Petitioner’s violations of probation were found to be willful, the trial court could not have reviewed the proceedings here and determined that they were supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Because the trial court could not apply the correct law, it could not have observed the essential requirements of law.
Accordingly, we GRANT the certiorari petition, QUASH the trial court’s order denying the petition for ha-beas corpus, and REMAND with instructions that the trial court quash the Parole Commission’s order of revocation, and that the proceedings be remanded for a factual determination by the hearing officer of whether Petitioner’s violations were willful.
KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Fla. Parole Comm'n v. Taylor, 132 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 2014)…t the FPC has broad discretion to revoke conditional release. The First District has explained that a “willful violation of a substantial condition of parole or probation will justify revocation of parole or probation,” Mathis v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 944 So. 2d 1182, 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), and distinguished the deference due to a parole examiner’s finding of fact from the FPC’s discretion regarding a parole examiner’s “non-binding” recommendation to restore conditional release. Lopez v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 9…
-
Crosby v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 949 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…Carter, 835 So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla.2002); Ellis v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 911 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In addition, the finder of fact must make a determination that the violation was both willful and substantial. See Mathis v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 944 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Here, although the hearing examiner found petitioner guilty of failing to report to the probation office as instructed, it was not clear from either the hearing examiner’s records or the Parole Commission’s order of revocation w…
-
Houck v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 953 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…Carter, 835 So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla.2002); Ellis v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 911 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In addition, the finder of fact must make a determination that the violation was both willful and substantial. See Mathis v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 944 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Here, although the hearing examiner found petitioner guilty of a curfew violation, it was not clear from either the hearing examiner’s records or the Parole Commission’s order of revocation whether the violation was found to be…
Previewing 3 of 17 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)
- Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 703 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- VAN Wagner v. State, 677 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Richardson v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 924 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Murray B. Silverstein v. Pub. Med. Assistance Tr. Fund, 911 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)