Bivens v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bivens v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission

453 So. 2d 1166, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14057

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 19, 1984

DocketNo. AW-251

StatusPublished

This text of 453 So. 2d 1166 (Bivens 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.

Bluebook

Bivens v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 453 So. 2d 1166, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14057 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

WENTWORTH, Judge.

This appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of mandamus was initially dismissed as untimely. The stamped date on the notice of appeal was not clearly legible but appeared to indicate a filing date of December 12, 1983. By motion for rehearing appellant correctly asserts that the notice of appeal was filed on December 1, 1983, and was therefore timely. The appeal is accordingly reinstated.

On the merits, we affirm because the record contains evidence that appellant had previously been convicted of four or more felony convictions, at least two of which resulted in incarceration. He was therefore properly classified as a recidivist offender for purposes of formulating his presumptive parole release date. Fla.Admin.Code Rule 23-21.07(1).

Affirmed.

ERVIN, C.J., and BOOTH, J., concur.

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

WENTWORTH, Judge.

This appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of mandamus was initially dismissed as untimely. The stamped date on the notice of appeal was not clearly legible but appeared to indicate a filing date of December 12, 1983. By motion for rehearing appellant correctly asserts that the notice of appeal was filed on December 1, 1983, and was therefore timely. The appeal is accordingly reinstated.

On the merits, we affirm because the record contains evidence that appellant had previously been convicted of four or more felony convictions, at least two of which resulted in incarceration. He was therefore properly classified as a recidivist offender for purposes of formulating his presumptive parole release date. Fla.Admin.Code Rule 23-21.07(1).

Affirmed.

ERVIN, C.J., and BOOTH, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

453 So. 2d 1166, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bivens-v-florida-parole-probation-commission-fladistctapp-1984.