JAMES HOUCK, 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 court held that the circuit court erred by not requiring the Parole Commission to prove a willful violation for revocation of supervised release.
Petitioner sought mandamus review of a parole revocation, but the circuit court denied the petition. The revocation was based on a curfew violation, b…
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 Willful And Substantial Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks certiorari review of the denial of a petition for writ of mandamus which challenged the Florida Parole Commission’s decision to revoke his conditional release supervision. Review is sought pursuant to Sheley v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1998) (holding that at this stage of the proceedings, review is limited to a determination of whether the circuit court afforded due process and whether the court observed the essential requirements of law). We grant the petition.
To support a revocation of supervised release, the state must prove that a violation of a condition of supervision was both willful and substantial. See State v. 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 willful. Accordingly, the circuit court could not have reviewed the proceedings and determined that they were supported by competent substantial evidence in the record and, because the circuit court could not apply the correct law, it could not have observed the essential requirements of law. Id.; Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 949 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Crosby v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 949 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
The petition for writ of certiorari is GRANTED and the final order of the circuit court is quashed. This cause is hereby REMANDED.
BARFIELD, WOLF, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edenfield v. State, 45 So. 3d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…. See Rogers v. Singletary, 698 So. 2d 1178, 1180 (Fla.1996); see also Wilson v. State, 947 So. 2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). . See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). . See Houck v. Fla. Parole Com'n, 953 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Gillespie v. City of Destin, 946 So. 2d 1195, 1197-98 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). . 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525 (1975) (emphasis added), quoting Adams v. United [*30] States ex. rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.…
-
Harris v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 986 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…vidence in the record and, because the circuit court could not apply the correct law, it could not have observed the essential requirements of law. Id.; Johnson v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 958 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Houck v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 953 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 949 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Crosby v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 949 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Accordingly, the order of the circuit court is quashed. Further, the circuit court’s order…
-
Smith v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 971 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…proceedings and determined that they were supported by competent substantial evidence and, because the circuit court did not apply the correct law, it could not have observed the essential requirements of the law. Accord Houck v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 953 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). [*1029] Accordingly, we grant the petition, quash the circuit court’s order and remand for further proceedings. PETITION GRANTED. ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2002)
- Mathis v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 944 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Crosby v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 949 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Murray B. Silverstein v. Pub. Med. Assistance Tr. Fund, 911 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 949 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)