LORENZO BROOKS, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, APPELLEE
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.
Lorenzo Brooks challenged the constitutionality of Florida's conditional release statutes as violating due process, arguing the statutes failed to provide a list of prohibited acts that could result in revocation. The court affirmed the circuit court's denial of his habeas petition, finding the conditional release order itself provides adequate notice of applicable conditions.
The court held that the conditional release statutes do not violate due process because the order of conditional release itself notifies the inmate of the specific conditions that will apply, providing adequate notice. Brooks's argument lacked merit.
[1] A petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the constitutionality of conditional release statutes may be considered on its merits even if the petitioner has not yet…
[2] Due process is satisfied when an order of conditional release notifies the inmate of the specific conditions attendant to that release.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When an inmate is placed on conditional release, the order of conditional release notifies the inmate of the conditions that will apply.”
Establishes that the conditional release order itself provides notice of conditions, satisfying due process requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLorenzo Brooks, an inmate not yet placed on conditional release, filed a habeas petition challenging sections 947.1405 and 947.141 of the Florida Stat…
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 Notice Of Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
[*495] PER CURIAM.
In this certiorari proceeding, Lorenzo Brooks (Appellant) challenges an order of the Palm Beach County circuit court which denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging as unconstitutional the conditional release statutes, sections 947.1405 and 947.141, Florida Statutes (2006). As the circuit court’s ruling was not rendered in its review capacity, we re-designate the proceeding as an appeal, treat Appellant’s petition as his initial brief, and affirm summarily pursuant to rule 9.315(a) (providing court may affirm summarily on finding no preliminary basis for reversal has been demonstrated).
The circuit court may have been inaccurate in calling Appellant’s habeas petition premature, though Appellant has not yet been placed on conditional release. Compare Duncan v. Moore, 754 So. 2d 708 (Fla.2000) (considering the merits of a habeas petition filed by an inmate subject to the conditional release program, who did not appear to have been released yet). Nevertheless, the circuit court clearly was correct in denying the petition on the merits, citing Mayes v. Moore, 827 So. 2d 967 (Fla.2002).
The cases cited by the circuit court did not address Appellant’s argument that he was denied due process because the challenged statutes did not contain a list of prohibited acts that may result in the revocation of his conditional release. However, we find this argument also to be without merit. When an inmate is placed on conditional release, the order of conditional release notifies the inmate of the conditions that will apply. See § 947.1405(6) (“If the commission determines that the inmate is eligible for release under this section, the commission shall enter an order establishing the length of supervision and the conditions attendant thereto.”). Compare Avatar Dev. Corp. v. State, 723 So. 2d 199, 203-04 (Fla.1998) (approving this court’s opinion, which held petitioners, charged with failing to comply with special conditions to prevent pollution set out in permit issued by Department of Environmental Protection, were not deprived of due process because the permit they received provided them with notice of the conditions upon which the permit was issued).
Affirmed.
SHAHOOD, C.J., HAZOURI and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yearby v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 980 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…re set out in full in the chapter law. They are not amended solely by reference to the title. Petitioner’s remaining constitutional challenge to the conditional release statute was recently rejected by this court in Brooks v. Florida Parole Com’n, 974 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Accordingly, we deny this petition. SHAHOOD, C.J., POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Duncan v. Moore, 754 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 2000)
- Mayes v. Moore, 827 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2002)
- Avatar Dev. Corp. & Amikam Tanel v. State, 723 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1998)