Carswell v. Florida Parole Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carswell v. Florida Parole Commission

861 So. 2d 532, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19748, 2003 WL 23094883

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 31, 2003

DocketNo. 1D03-1738

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 861 So. 2d 532 (Carswell 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

Carswell v. Florida Parole Commission, 861 So. 2d 532, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19748, 2003 WL 23094883 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the circuit court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he challenged the Florida Parole Commission’s revocation of his conditional release supervision. The Commission based the revocation on appellant’s violation of condition 2(c) and condition 7. Before the circuit court, appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the violations. Without issuing an order to show cause, the circuit court found that appellant had admitted violating condition 2(c) and therefore, regardless of the validity of the violation of condition 7, revocation of appellant’s conditional release supervision was proper. We find that the record before the circuit court did not reveal whether the Commission would have revoked appellant’s conditional release supervision solely based on a violation of condition 2(c). Therefore, the order dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby quashed, and this proceeding is remanded to the circuit court for the issuance of an order to show cause directing the filing of a response by the Commission. If the Commission fails to show that it would have revoked appellant’s conditional release supervision solely on a violation of condition 2(c), then, the circuit court shall remand to the Commission for further proceedings. See Lee v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 730 So.2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

ERVIN, BOOTH and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the circuit court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he challenged the Florida Parole Commission’s revocation of his conditional release supervision. The Commission based the revocation on appellant’s violation of condition 2(c) and condition 7. Before the circuit court, appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the violations. Without issuing an order to show cause, the circuit court found that appellant had admitted violating condition 2(c) and therefore, regardless of the validity of the violation of condition 7, revocation of appellant’s conditional release supervision was proper. We find that the record before the circuit court did not reveal whether the Commission would have revoked appellant’s conditional release supervision solely based on a violation of condition 2(c). Therefore, the order dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby quashed, and this proceeding is remanded to the circuit court for the issuance of an order to show cause directing the filing of a response by the Commission. If the Commission fails to show that it would have revoked appellant’s conditional release supervision solely on a violation of condition 2(c), then, the circuit court shall remand to the Commission for further proceedings. See Lee v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 730 So.2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

ERVIN, BOOTH and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

861 So. 2d 532, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19748, 2003 WL 23094883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carswell-v-florida-parole-commission-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack