JIM JOHNSON, ALIAS DEWEY T. GRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, FLORIDA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION AND ALL AGENTS THEREOF, APPELLEES
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.
Jim Johnson petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus claiming he was illegally detained and that jail time spent on parole commission warrants should have been credited toward his prison sentence. The court remanded the case, finding that while the parole revocation hearing did not require appointed counsel, the trial court should have issued the writ to allow full consideration of Johnson's credit-for-time claims.
The trial court erred in denying the petition without issuing the writ. The writ should have been issued to allow the state to show cause why the petition should not be granted. The claim regarding appointed counsel at the parole revocation hearing is without merit under existing precedent.
“In view of the charge made in the petition we are of the opinion that the writ should have been issued to the respondents directing that cause be shown as to why said petition should not be granted.”
Establishes that the trial court erred in summarily denying the habeas petition without issuing the writ of habeas corpus to require the state to respond with specific information.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson was released on parole but was arrested under warrants issued by the Florida Parole Commission while on parole. He spent over five years in ja…
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 Parole Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he is illegally being detained in the state prison. He alleged that while he was out on parole that he was arrested under warrants issued by the Florida Parole Commission and held • in jail for over five years on these warrants. It is contended that this period of imprisonment was not credited to his prison sentence and if credit had been so given he would be entitled to be released from prison.
Based upon the petition for writ of habeas corpus and a letter from the Attorney General’s Office the petition was denied. The letter sets forth the dates petitioner spent in prison and the dates he was out on parole. There is no statement as to when the warrants were issued for petitioner’s arrest while he was out on parole or how long he spent in jail under such arrests before his parole was revoked or he was released. In view of the charge made in the petition we are of the opinion that the writ should have been issued to the respondents directing that cause be shown as to why said petition should not be granted. The return should contain an official statement showing the exact dates petitioner was held in prison on warrants issued by the parole commission and pending action on parole violation, and also when any warrants were issued for his arrest while he was out on parole and how long he remained in jail under these warrants before parole was either continued or revoked. Too, there should be a statement whether petitioner was credited with any time he might have served in jail under the warrants.
Petitioner has also asserted that he was denied constitutional rights in that a court appointed counsel was not furnished to him in the parole revocation hearing. Such assertion is without merit. Shiplett v. Wainwright, 198 So.2d 647 (Fla.App. 1st, *5061967); Hutchinson v. Patterson, 267 F. Supp. 433 (D.Colo.1967); Williams v. Craven, 273 F.Supp. 649 (C.D.Calif., 1967).
Because of the reason discussed above we hereby remand this case to the trial court and direct that the writ be issued and that this case proceed in accordance with established habeas corpus procedure.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruiter v. Louie L. Wainwright, 251 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…PER CURIAM. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been duly considered and the same is hereby denied. § 947.23, F.S., F.S.A.; Shiplett v. Wainwright (Fla.App.1967) 198 So. 2d 647; Johnson v. Wainwright (Fla.App.1968) 208 So. 2d 505; Hyser v. Reed, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 254, 318 F. 2d 225. CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Shiplett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 198 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)