DARYL SMITH, 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 Parole Commission's revocation of parole was improper without a finding that the violation was willful.
Petitioner's parole was revoked for failing to be at his residence and violating curfew, despite a hearing examiner's recommendation for reinstatement…
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 Parole Revocation 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.
The Florida Parole Commission issued a warrant charging petitioner with violating the terms of parole when he failed to be at his approved residence and by violating curfew. Petitioner entered a plea of guilty and the hearing examiner recommended reinstatement to parole with a strong letter of reprimand. Nonetheless, the Parole Commission revoked petitioner’s parole. Petitioner asserts that the Parole Commission was bound by the hearing examiner’s recommendation that he be reinstated to parole. This argument has been rejected by this court in Lopez v. Florida Parole Commission, 943 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (stating that, a hearing examiner’s recommendation is non-binding).
However, the record shows that 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 parole. 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, quash the circuit court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
PETITION GRANTED.
ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Parole Comm'n v. Taylor, 132 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 2014)…aminer’s finding of fact from the FPC’s discretion regarding a parole examiner’s “non-binding” recommendation to restore conditional release. Lopez v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 943 So. 2d 199, 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also Smith v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 971 So. 2d 1028, 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“Petitioner asserts that the Parole Commission was bound by the hearing examiner’s recommendation that he be reinstated to parole. This argument has been rejected by this court....”); Miller v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 8:07-…
-
Brown v. McNeil, 591 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (M.D. Fla. 2008)…ght ... and has established standards for its revocation, the prisoner’s interest has real substance and falls within the protections of the [Fourteenth [Ajmendment”) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Smith v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 971 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (remanding for further proceedings where, notwithstanding petitioner’s guilty plea as to curfew violation, Parole Commission failed to make findings as to whether violation was willful or substantial); Van Wagner v. State,…
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)
- Lopez v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 943 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)