Adams v. Florida Parole Commission
734 So. 2d 603, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9110, 1999 WL 454505
Opinion
We conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus without affording petitioner the opportunity to reply to respondent’s response below. See Jones v. Singletary, 709 So.2d 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Bard v. Wolson, 687 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus is quashed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Adams v. Florida Parole Commission, 734 So. 2d 603, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9110, 1999 WL 454505 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).
734 So. 2d 603 (Adams v. Florida Parole Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Jones v. Singletary
709 So. 2d 656 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Bard v. Wolson
687 So. 2d 254 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)