ARTHUR D. CARPENTER, 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 denied Carpenter's petition for certiorari challenging the revocation of his conditional release, holding that while his habeas petition was not time-barred under Florida law, the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in denying relief on the merits.
A habeas petition challenging revocation of conditional release is not time-barred under section 95.11(5)(f), Florida Statutes, but the trial court did not err in denying relief on the merits where the petitioner failed to raise certain issues in the original habeas petition.
[1] A habeas corpus petition challenging revocation of conditional release is not time-barred under section 95.11(5)(f), Florida Statutes, contrary to the Fourth District's holding in Cooper v. …
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 intelligenceArthur Carpenter sought review of a trial court's denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging the revocation of his conditional release on severa…
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 Certify Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Arthur Carpenter seeks review, by way of a petition for writ of certiorari, of the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus which challenged the revocation of his conditional release on several grounds. We agree with Carpenter that his habeas petition was not time-barred by section 95.11(5)(f), Florida Statutes (2004), based on the reasoning set forth by the First District in Martin v. Florida Parole Commission, 951 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). As did the First District in Martin, we certify conflict with Cooper v. Florida Parole Commission, 924 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), on this issue.
However, in addition to denying Carpenter’s habeas petition on the timeliness issue, the trial court also denied it on the merits. After a thorough review of the record, we hold that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law in denying Carpenter relief on the issues he raised in his habeas petition. We decline to address those issues Carpenter has raised for the first time in his petition for certiorari review. See Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 625 So. 2d 926, 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Hansen v. Wainwright, 493 So. 2d 38, 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Petition denied; conflict certified.
NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 48 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 2010)…trict court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the decisions of the First and Second District Courts of Appeal in Martin v. Florida Parole Commission, 951 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), and Carpenter v. Florida Parole Commission, 958 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In March 1968, Willie F. Jones (Jones) was sentenced to prison for a term of 99 years. After Jones had served over 14 years in prison, the Parole Co…1 / 3
-
Coy Smith v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 987 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…writ of habeas corpus that [*230] seeks review of an order revoking parole or conditional release supervision. Martin v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 951 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA), review dismissed, 957 So. 2d 635 (Fla.2007); Carpenter v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 958 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). We agree with the concerns Judge Thomas raised in his concurrence in Presley v. Florida Parole Commission, 904 So. 2d 573, 574-75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), as to why a time limit for seeking review of these types of orders is direly…
-
Jones v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 4 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…a. 4th DCA 2008); Cooper, 924 So. 2d at 967. As we did in Smith, we certify conflict with Martin v. Florida Parole Commission, 951 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), rev. dismissed, 957 So. 2d 635 (Fla.2007), and Carpenter v. Florida Parole Commission, 958 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Redesignated as an appeal and Affirmed; Conflict Certified. WARNER, FARMER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 625 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Martin v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 951 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Cooper v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 924 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Erling Knud Ove Hansen, Jr. v. Louie L. Wainwright, 493 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)