BLACKBURN
v.
JACKSON
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 Florida Supreme Court held that a circuit court lacks jurisdiction to grant bail to a parolee held under a parole violation warrant issued by the Parole Commission, absent a showing that the Commission abused its discretion. The decision clarifies the exclusive authority of the Parole Commission over bail decisions in parole violation cases.
A circuit court lacks jurisdiction to grant bail to a parolee held under a parole violation warrant. Such authority is vested exclusively in the Parole Commission pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 947.22, and bail may only be granted by the circuit court if there is a showing that the Parole Commission abused its discretion.
“A reading of Chapter 947, in its entirety, leaves no doubt that it was the intention of the legislature to vest in the Florida Parole Commission the power to grant and administer paroles, commit parolees to jail or grant them bond, as the circumstances might suggest.”
Establishes the legislative intent to grant exclusive authority to the Parole Commission over bail decisions in parole cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlackburn, a paroled prisoner, was held in Hillsborough County jail under a parole violation warrant issued by the Florida Parole Commission. He petit…
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 Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
Writ of habeas corpus was' granted appellee on petition charging that he' was held in custody for violating parole. The peti-' tion prayed that he be discharged or, in the alternative, that he be released on bail pending a hearing before the Parole Commission. Return to the writ alleged that appellee was committed to the Hillsborough County jail and was being held under warrant of the Parole Commission. On the issue thus presented, the court entered an order finding that he had jurisdiction of appellee and admitted him to bail in the sum of $3,500, conditioned that he appear before the Florida Parole Commission March 16, 1954, or any member thereof that may be designated by the Commission. We are confronted with an appeal by certiorari from that order, leave for which was granted by the Circuit Court.
The point for determination is whether or not the Circuit Court has power or jurisdiction to grant bail to a parolee who is held under parole violation warrant issued from the Florida Parole Commission.
It is admitted that appellee was tried and convicted for crime in a court of competent jurisdiction and that he was paroled by the Florida Parole Commission. Appellant contends that when this is the case there is no power in the Circuit Court to allow bail. Ex parte Hyde, 140 Fla. 494, 192 So. 159, and Section 947.22, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., are relied on to support this contention.
Ex parte Hyde is authority for the view that bail is allowable before conviction but thereafter the allowance of bail is discretionary and allowable only, in cases bailable according to the course of the common law or the statutes. Section-947.22(l), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is a portion of Chapter 20519, Acts of 1941, creating and defining the powers of the Florida Parole Commission, and is as follows:
“If any member of the commission shall have reasonable ground to believe that any parolee has lapsed into criminal ways, or has violated the terms and conditions of his parole in a material respect, such member may issue a warrant for the arrest of such parolee. Said warrant, if issued by a member of the commission, shall be returnable before him and shall command that the parolee be brought before him, when he may examine such parolee and admit ,him to bail conditioned for his appearance before the parole commission, or if he is not admitted to bail, commit; him to jail pending a hearing before the commission as hereinafter provided.” (Emphasis added.)
A reading of Chapter 947, in its entirety, leaves no doubt that it was the intention of the legislature to vest in the Florida Parole Commission the power to grant and administer paroles, commit parolees to jail or grant them bond, as the circumstances might suggest. Section 79.-01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., governing applications for habeas corpus, requires the petitioner to “show by affidavit or evidence probable cause to believe that he is detained in custody without lawful authority/’ Certainly this showing cannot be made if the parolee is held under a parole violation warrant after bail is denied by the Parole Commission pursuant to the cited statute. The order of the Circuit Judge shows on its face that it was made on examination of the petition and the return of the sheriff so there was no showing that the Parole Commission abused its discretion.
It seems to me that the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to admit appellee to bail, there being no showing that the Parole Commission abused its discretion.
It follows that the judgment appealed from must be and is hereby reversed.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sylvester, 401 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…for ten days. At any time after the new arrest the Commission may commence formal revocation proceedings pursuant to Sections 947.22 and 947.23. This interpretation of the statutory provisions is consistent with the holding of Blackburn v. Jackson, 74 So. 2d 80 (Fla.1954), wherein the Supreme Court stated that the circuit courts were without power to release a parolee who was being detained under a parole violation warrant of the Parole and Probation Commission absent a showing of the Commission’s abuse of…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Ernest P. Murphy v. Ira Partin, 301 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)…nstitutional right to bail under Article I, Section 14, except to note that the distinction between a parolee and a probationer in this setting is not particularly appealing. I might add that this Court’s decision in Blackburn v. Jackson (Fla.1954), 74 So. 2d 80, in which we recognized the exclusive discretion given the Parole and Probation Commission by Section 947.22, Florida Statutes, in granting bail to parole violators is by no means controlling on the constitutional issue. Rather, I take this opportu…
Authorities Cited
- Ex parte Hyde, 140 Fla. 494 (Fla. 1939)