ROBERT JOHNSON, 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 a finding of willful violation before revoking conditional release.
[1] A circuit court cannot review parole commission proceedings for competent substantial evidence absent a finding that the petitioner's action constituted a willful violati…
[2] A parole commission's revocation of conditional release without a finding of willful violation of a substantial condition is an error of law.
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 intelligencePetitioner admitted to violating supervision by attempting to steal a radio due to financial need. Despite a recommendation for reinstatement with com…
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.
Petitioner seeks certiorari review of the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus under Sheley v. Florida Parole Commission, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1998). Because the facts of this case are substantially similar to Mathis v. Florida Parole Commission, 944 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), we grant the petition for writ of certiorari.
Petitioner was placed on conditional release supervision until May 3, 2007. The Department of Corrections issued a violation report asserting that petitioner violated a condition of supervision on May 18, 2006, when he attempted to remove a satellite radio from his employer’s place of business. Petitioner admitted to the violation stating that he took the radio because he was in desperate need of money. Although petitioner was found guilty of the violation, the hearing examiner cited petitioner’s two-year record of no violations and recommended that petitioner be reinstated to supervision with six months of community control and GPS monitoring. Nonetheless, the Parole Commission revoked petitioner’s conditional release.
Neither the hearing examiner’s disposition recommendation nor the Parole Com mission’s revocation order contained a finding that petitioner’s action constituted a willful violation of a substantial condition of conditional release supervision. In Mathis, this court held that absent such a finding, the circuit court could not have reviewed the 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, 958 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, we grant the petition, quash the circuit court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
PETITION GRANTED.
KAHN, LEWIS, and HAWKES, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 986 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…nd 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.; 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…
-
Lancaster v. Dep't of Corr., 273 So. 3d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…tions were both willful and substantial). Accordingly, reviewing courts have concluded that a circuit court’s failure to grant a habeas corpus petition in such a case amounts to failure to apply the correct law. See Johnson v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 958 So. 2d 1109, 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). 4 Here, the circuit court concluded that FCOR’s findings were consistent with the examiner’s findings, which is true; however, the circuit court did not address Lancaster’s claim that both the examiner and FCOR faile…
-
Lancaster v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1998)
- 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)