Adams v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission
This text of 422 So. 2d 953 (Adams v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Appellants, inmates housed at Polk Correctional Institution, appeal the dismissal of their § 120.56, Fla.Stat. (1981), action challenging the Florida Parole and Probation Commission’s rules which became effective on September 10, 1981. We affirm the [954]*954order1 of the Department of Administration’s hearing officer.
However, one issue raised warrants discussion. Appellants claim that the Commission provided inadequate notice of the proposed rules to the class of persons to whom the intended action was directed. See § 120.54(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981). The record reveals that copies of the first set of proposed rules were sent to over 300 governmental entities which work in criminal law, including the superintendents of each of the correctional institutions. Thereafter, five workshops were conducted throughout the state, notices of which were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The second set of proposed rules was drafted in large part in response to the information derived from the workshops. Notice of the proposed rulemaking, was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly and in five newspapers of broad circulation. A hearing was requested and conducted on the date, at the time, and in the place designated in the notice. Copies of the proposed rules were sent to all persons who requested them from the Commission, pursuant to the notice. Inmates from other correctional institutions sought and received copies of the proposed rules prior to their adoption.
However, appellants contend that Polk Correctional Institution does not receive the Florida Administrative Weekly and does not subscribe to any of the newspapers in which the notice was published. They argue that § 120.54 requires the Commission to post notice in the correctional institutions, as § 120.54(l)(a)3 requires of educational units. The applicable statement in the statute is:
The agency shall also give such notice as is prescribed by rule to those particular classes of persons to whom the intended action is directed.
The hearing officer found that the Commission does not have rules governing how notice is to be given to inmates, who are indeed the particular class of persons to whom the action at issue is directed, and that the notice given exceeded statutory requirements.
The record shows that inmates at Polk Correctional Institution, including Adams, had notice in fact of the proposed rules and, had they exercised proper diligence, could have obtained notice of each of the proceedings and copies of the proposed rules.2 Under these circumstances, we agree with the hearing officer’s finding that, absent a rule prescribing more, the notice provided by the Commission went beyond the requirements of § 120.54. However, our opinion should not be construed as approving the Commission’s failure to adopt a rule which provides for notice to the affected class of persons, pursuant to § 120.54(l)(a).3
The order appealed is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
422 So. 2d 953, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-florida-parole-probation-commission-fladistctapp-1982.