Bauder v. Florida Parole Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bauder v. Florida Parole Commission

808 So. 2d 262, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1159, 2002 WL 181151

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 6, 2002

DocketNo. 1D00-4253

StatusPublished

This text of 808 So. 2d 262 (Bauder v. Florida Parole 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.

Bluebook

Bauder v. Florida Parole Commission, 808 So. 2d 262, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1159, 2002 WL 181151 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because the petition filed in the lower tribunal alleged facts which at least arguably might entitle him to immediate release, the petition should have been treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was exempt from costs and fees. Although the lower court could have dismissed the petition, even if treated as a habeas corpus petition, on grounds that Petitioner should have filed the petition in the circuit where he is incarcerated, we remand for immediate transfer to the appropriate court in the interests of expediency. Gillard v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 784 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Stanley v. Moore, 744 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

BOOTH, BARFIELD, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because the petition filed in the lower tribunal alleged facts which at least arguably might entitle him to immediate release, the petition should have been treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was exempt from costs and fees. Although the lower court could have dismissed the petition, even if treated as a habeas corpus petition, on grounds that Petitioner should have filed the petition in the circuit where he is incarcerated, we remand for immediate transfer to the appropriate court in the interests of expediency. Gillard v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 784 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Stanley v. Moore, 744 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

BOOTH, BARFIELD, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

808 So. 2d 262, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1159, 2002 WL 181151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bauder-v-florida-parole-commission-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack