JAMES EDWARD SMITH, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The court held that the petitioner received the necessary procedural safeguards during his parole revocation hearing.
Petitioner sought habeas corpus, alleging his parole revocation lacked required procedural safeguards. The record showed a warrant was issued, petitio…
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 Procedural Safeguards cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus initially filed in the Supreme Court. That court issued its writ returnable to this court, and the respondent has filed his return thereto.
Petitioner contends his parole was revoked in a procedure which failed to accord him all of the procedural safeguards pronounced by the United States Supreme Court in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).
Our review of the record herein consisting of the allegations of both the petition and the return, as well as the exhibits attached to the return, reveals that petitioner was afforded the necessary safeguards in connection with his parole revocation. The exhibits attached to the return show that a warrant was issued and served upon petitioner charging him with parole violation. He agreed to proceed to hearing after waiving counsel and the Parole Commission entered its order of revocation upon a finding that petitioner absconded from supervision in violation of the terms of his parole. In the circumstances reflected by the record herein, it is our view that the writ heretofore issued should be discharged on authority of our recent opin ion in Addison v. Florida Parole Board, 281 So. 2d 906.
The writ is hereby discharged.
RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibbs v. Louie L. Wainwright, 302 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…e June 15, 1973. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that Gibbs was afforded the minimum due process requirements of Morrissey. Addison v. Florida Parole Board, Fla.App.1st, 1973, 281 So. 2d 906; Smith v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1st, 1973, 285 So. 2d 668; Dees v. State, Fla. 1974, 295 So. 2d 296. Gibbs next contends that he was subjected to double jeopardy in that through parole revocation all of his gain time, statutory time and parole time has been taken from him. At the time Gibbs’ parole was r…
Authorities Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972)
- Addison v. Fla. Parole Bd., 281 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)