BERNARD WILLIAMS, 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 granted certiorari and quashed the Parole Commission's revocation of conditional release supervision because the record lacked a finding of willful violation of a substantial condition, and the hearing officer recommended reinstatement.
A parole revocation order must contain an explicit finding that the violation constituted a willful breach of a substantial condition of conditional release, and absent such finding with supporting evidence, the revocation must be quashed.
[1] A parole revocation order must contain an explicit finding that the alleged violation constituted a willful breach of a substantial condition of conditional release, and…
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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBernard Williams' conditional release supervision was revoked by the Florida Parole Commission. The hearing officer recommended reinstatement, and the…
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 Conditional Release Supervision cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Bernard Williams seeks certiorari review of the denial of a petition for writ of mandamus which challenged the decision of the Florida Parole Commission, respondent, revoking his conditional release supervision. Because (i) the evidence of a willful violation on the part of the petitioner is tenuous at best, (ii) the hearing officer recommended reinstatement, and (iii) neither the parole examiner’s report nor the Parole Commission’s order contain a finding the petitioner’s violation of his conditional release constituted a willful violation of a substantial condition of the conditional release order, under this court’s recent decisions in Williams v. Florida Parole Commission, 949 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) and Mathis v. Florida Parole Commission, 944 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), we grant the petition, quash the circuit court’s order, and remand with instructions that the trial court quash the order of the Parole Commission and remand for further proceedings consistent with these opinions. Further, the circuit court’s order imposing a lien is quashed. Crosby v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 949 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BARFIELD, WOLF, AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 977 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…e supervision constituted a willful violation of a substantial condition of the conditional release order, the circuit court could not have reviewed the matter in accordance with the essential requirements of law. See Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 954 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Accordingly, the final order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the circuit court, which, in turn, remanded the matter to the Parole Commission to determine whether petitioner’s violation was willful and substantial. B…
-
Barrera v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 987 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…ntended that the Florida Parole Commission erroneously revoked his conditional release without finding that his violation was a willful violation of a substantial condition of the conditional release order, see Williams v. Florida Parole Commission, 954 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), and therefore he was entitled to be reinstated to conditional release. We conclude that the circuit court should have treated the petition for writ of mandamus as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, see Rowe v. State, 765 So.…
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 949 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)