RUBEN VELEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of Velez's postconviction motion, holding that the Florida Parole Commission had discretionary authority under section 947.1405(6) to impose special conditions on his conditional release supervision for a 1990 offense.
The Florida Parole Commission has discretionary authority under section 947.1405(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), to impose special conditions on conditional release supervision for inmates convicted of offenses committed before the 1995 statutory amendments.
[1] The Florida Parole Commission has discretionary authority under section 947.1405(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), to impose special conditions on conditional release sup…
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 intelligenceRuben Velez was convicted of an offense in 1990 and sought postconviction relief challenging the special conditions imposed on his conditional release…
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
We affirm the order summarily denying Ruben Velez’s postconviction motion that he styled as a motion for clarification. We write only to address the application of *809section 947.1405(7), Florida Statutes (1995), which concerns conditional release supervision.
Velez correctly contended that the 1995 version of section 947.1405(7), which provides for mandatory special conditions of conditional release supervision for inmates who meet certain criteria, does not apply to his 1990 offense. However, section 947.1405(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), provides that “the commission shall conduct a review of the inmate’s record for the purpose of establishing the terms and conditions of the conditional release. The commission may impose any special conditions it considers warranted from its review of the record.” Thus, the Florida Parole Commission has discretionary authority to impose special conditions as part of an inmate’s conditional release pursuant to section 947.1405(6). See Grace v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 985 So.2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (determining that pursuant to section 947.1405(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), the Florida Parole Commission “had the discretionary authority to impose special sexual offender conditions on [the petitioner’s] conditional release supervision”); see also Ortiz v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 15 So.3d 941, 942 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (determining that “the Florida Parole Commission had the authority to impose a curfew as a condition of conditional release, where the underlying crimes were committed in 1990”) (footnote omitted).
Affirmed.
FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Grace v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 985 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Ortiz v. The Fla. Parole Comm'n, 15 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)