KEITH R. HARRIS, 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.
Keith Harris challenged the Florida Parole Commission's revocation of his parole supervision. The appellate court granted certiorari review and quashed the revocation order because the Commission failed to make explicit findings that Harris's violations were both willful and substantial, as required by law.
The court granted certiorari and quashed the revocation order because neither the hearing examiner nor the Parole Commission made explicit findings that the violations were willful and substantial, a requirement mandated by law. The court also quashed the circuit court's lien order and directed reimbursement of any funds withdrawn from Harris's account.
[1] Revocation of supervised release requires a showing that the violation was both willful and substantial.
[2] The finder of fact must determine that a violation of supervised release was both willful and substantial.
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 intelligence“to support a revocation of supervised release, it must be shown that a violation was both willful and substantial”
Establishes the legal standard required for parole revocation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris was found to have violated his parole supervision terms by using marijuana (evidenced by a positive drug test) and failing to timely report to …
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 Willful And Substantial Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Keith R. Harris seeks certiorari review of the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus, which challenged the Florida Parole Commission’s order revoking his parole supervision. Review is sought pursuant to Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1998) (holding that at this stage of the proceedings, review is limited to a determination of whether the circuit court afforded due process and whether it observed the essential requirements of law). We grant the petition.
Petitioner was found to have violated the terms of his supervision by using marijuana, as evidenced by a positive drug test, and by failing to timely report to the parole office as instructed. As the Parole Commission acknowledges, to support a revocation of supervised release, it must be shown that a violation was both willful and substantial. See Ellis v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 911 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In addition, the finder of fact must make a determination that the violation was both willful and substantial. See Mathis v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 944 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Here, neither the hearing examiner nor the Parole Commission made a finding that petitioner’s violations were willful and substantial.
Moreover, it is not apparent from the record whether petitioner’s supervision would have been revoked if only one of the two alleged violations was found to be willful and substantial.
Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court could not have reviewed the proceeding and 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 the circuit court is quashed. Further, the circuit court’s order imposing a lien is quashed, and the circuit court should direct the reimbursement of any funds that have been withdrawn from petitioner’s account to satisfy the improper lien order. See Crosby v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 949 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The matter is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BROWNING, C.J., KAHN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jimel Cofer v. State of Fla. & Fla. Parole Comm'n, 28 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…sion is not within the scope of our review in this second-tier posture, a review of the record raises serious doubts regarding whether Cofer violated the supervising officer’s instructions in any significant way. See Harris v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 986 So. 2d 632, 632-33 (Fla. 1st DCA) (“[T]o support a revocation of supervised release, it must be shown that a violation was both willful and substantial.”), rev. denied, 996 So. 2d 212 (Fla.2008). On the day of the alleged violation that resulted in revocatio…
-
Lancaster v. Dep't of Corr., 273 So. 3d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…aster violated the terms of his parole by using illegal drugs, it is not clear from the examiner’s findings, the record, or FCOR’s revocation order whether the violation was found to be willful and substantial. E.g., Harris v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 986 So. 2d 632, 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (granting certiorari where trial court found that the defendant violated the terms of his supervision by testing positive for marijuana and failing to timely report to the parole office as instructed but failed to determi…
-
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)
- Houck v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 953 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Murray B. Silverstein v. Pub. Med. Assistance Tr. Fund, 911 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 949 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Johnson v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 958 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)