Arnett v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission

420 So. 2d 377, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28682
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 12, 1982·No. No. AL-320·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

MILLS, Judge.

Arnett appeals Florida Parole and Probation Commission action establishing his presumptive parole release date. We affirm.

There is no ex post facto violation in applying the matrix in effect at the time of interview when the crime was committed prior to enactment of parole guidelines, Lopez v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 410 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Britt v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 417 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Overfield v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 418 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1982).

The sufficiency of the notice given Arnett before the amendment of the objective parole guidelines is an issue for rule challenge proceedings, Canter v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 409 So.2d 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Arnett v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 420 So. 2d 377, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28682 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

420 So. 2d 377 (Arnett v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

O'SHAUGHNESSY v. State
420 So. 2d 377 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)