BRIAN C. PEARCE, PETITIONER,
v.
WALTER A. MCNEIL, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND MONICA DAVID, CHAIRPERSON, FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
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.
Brian Pearce challenged the revocation of his conditional release supervision by the Florida Parole Commission (FPC), arguing that the FPC failed to make a required finding that his violation was willful and substantial. The court granted certiorari and held that the FPC violated due process by having an administrator—rather than the original or a new parole examiner—make the willfulness finding based on documents and recordings without observing witness credibility.
The court held that due process was violated because the FPC administrator's finding of willfulness was based on an assessment of witness credibility that the administrator did not observe, consistent with the holding in Williams v. Florida Parole Commission. The circuit court's order denying relief was improper and the matter requires remand for further proceedings.
[1] A due process violation occurs when a Florida Parole Commission administrator's finding of willfulness regarding a supervision violation is based on an assessment of cred…
[2] A court should not make factual findings concerning the equitable considerations of a laches claim when those findings were not made by the lower court.
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“due process is violated when an FPC administrator's finding of willfulness with regard to an alleged violation of supervision is based on an assessment of credibility of witnesses he did not observe”
The court's primary holding regarding the due process violation based on Williams v. Florida Parole Commission
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePearce filed a habeas corpus petition challenging revocation of his conditional release supervision. The FPC initially failed to make a required willf…
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 Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order which rejected his challenge to the revocation of his conditional release supervision. We grant the petition.
In a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the circuit court, petitioner asserted that the Florida Parole Commission failed to make a finding that his violation of conditional release supervision was willful and substantial as required by Mathis v. Florida Parole Commission, 944 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). FPC conceded that a willfulness finding had not been made and filed a motion for remand. The circuit court remanded the cause, however by that time, the original parole examiner was no longer employed by FPC. An FPC Regional Administrator examined the records of the original revocation hearing, including documents and a tape recording of the revocation hearing, and made a determination that the violation was willful and substantial. FPC adopted this finding. Thereafter, the circuit court concluded that in light of the willfulness finding of the administrator and FPC’s adoption thereof, petitioner was not entitled to relief from the revocation order.
Petitioner argues that his due process rights were violated when the willfulness finding was not made by the original parole examiner or by a new parole examiner after another hearing. We agree in light of Williams v. Florida Parole Commission, 977 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), which held that due process is violated when an FPC administrator’s finding of willfulness with regard to an alleged violation of supervision is based on an assessment of credibility of witnesses he did not observe.
FPC has asserted that petitioner’s claim is barred by the doctrine of laches, however, this argument was not made before the circuit court. Where the circuit court has made no factual findings concerning the equitable considerations inherent in resolving a laches claim, it would be inappropriate for this court to do so. See Bryant v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 965 So.2d 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); accord, Barrera v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 987 So.2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).
Accordingly, the circuit court’s order denying habeas corpus relief on remand is QUASHED, and the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.
WOLF, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mathis v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 944 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Bryant v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 965 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 977 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Barrera v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 987 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)