NORRIS B. HAWKINS, 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.
Norris Hawkins sought certiorari review of a circuit court order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus against the Florida Parole Commission. The Court granted the petition and remanded the case because the Parole Commission failed to adequately state its reasons for denying parole, instead providing only the reasons for setting a longer interview interval.
The Court held that the Parole Commission failed to adequately state its reasons for denying parole and that the matter should be remanded to allow the Commission to set forth proper reasons for its parole denial decision.
[1] A writ of certiorari may be granted to review an order denying a petition for writ of mandamus.
[2] A court should quash an order denying mandamus relief when the agency has conceded error in its reasoning.
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“the Florida Parole Commission has conceded error, correctly admitting that "[a]lthough, as correctly observed by the lower court, the Commission did consider [four factors] in its latest Commission action and the Commission did provide the record it considered in said action, these factors were actually the reasons for setting Petitioner's parole interview within five years instead of two years pursuant to Section 947.1745(6), Fla. Stat., not for the continued suspension pursuant to Section 947.18, Florida Statutes."”
Establishes that the Commission failed to provide reasons for the actual parole denial decision, only for the interview interval decision
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHawkins had previously sought certiorari relief concerning the Florida Parole Commission's failure to set forth reasons for denying him parole. That f…
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 Presumptive Parole Release Date cases and more on FLexlaw
Norris Hawkins seeks certiorari review of an order denying his petition for writ of mandamus. We grant the petition, quash the order denying mandamus relief, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
This is the second time Hawkins has sought certiorari review in this court concerning the Florida Parole Commission’s failure to set forth its reasons for its most recent decision declining to grant him parole. This court previously granted Hawkins’ petition for writ of certiorari and quashed the circuit court’s order denying mandamus relief in Hawkins v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 65 So.3d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). This matter was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with Alday v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 58 So.3d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
Upon remand, the circuit court reconsidered Hawkins’ petition, but again denied mandamus relief, finding that the “Florida Parole Commission adequately stated the reasons and record support for their negative findings and decision to continue suspension of Petitioner’s Presumptive Parole Release Date.” We disagree.
As it did before, the Florida Parole Commission has conceded error, correctly admitting that
*437“[a]lthough, as correctly observed by the lower court, the Commission did consider [four factors]1 in its latest Commission action and the Commission did provide the record it considered in said action, these factors were actually the reasons for setting Petitioner’s parole interview within five years instead of two years pursuant to Section 947.1745(6), Fla. Stat., not for the continued suspension pursuant to Section 947.18, Florida Statutes.”
The Commission thus suggests that it is appropriate for the lower tribunal to remand the matter to it so that it may set forth its reasons for denying parole. We agree.
Accordingly, the order denying Hawkins’ petition for writ of mandamus is QUASHED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with Alday, supra.
DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Alday v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 58 So. 3d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Hawkins v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 65 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)