DAVID E. JACKSON, 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 circuit court's order because the Parole Commission failed to make a required finding that the petitioner's violation was willful and substantial before revoking conditional release.
A parole revocation order must contain an explicit finding that the violation was willful and substantial; absent such a finding, judicial review cannot proceed on the correct legal standard.
[1] A parole revocation order must contain an explicit finding that the violation was willful and substantial to permit proper judicial review under the correct legal standar…
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 intelligenceThe Florida Parole Commission revoked Jackson's conditional release based on a finding that he violated a special condition by driving alone without h…
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.
The Florida Parole Commission issued a warrant charging petitioner with violating the terms of conditional release supervision. The hearing examiner found petitioner guilty of violating a special condition of supervision by driving alone without the approval of his conditional release officer. Based on that finding, the Parole Commission revoked petitioner’s conditional release. Neither the hearing examiner’s disposition recommendation nor the Parole Commission’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, 953 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the circuit court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
BROWNING, C.J., KAHN and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
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)
- Houck v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 953 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)