David v. Flint

District Court of Appeal of Florida

David v. Flint

900 So. 2d 782, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7240, 2005 WL 1162951

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 18, 2005

DocketNo. 2D04-1750

StatusPublished

This text of 900 So. 2d 782 (David v. Flint) 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

David v. Flint, 900 So. 2d 782, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7240, 2005 WL 1162951 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

Monica David, as Chairman of the Florida Parole Commission, challenges the trial court order granting Ralph Flint, Jr.’s request for a writ of prohibition. Although this was initially filed as a petition for a writ of certiorari, this court converted it to a direct appeal.

David challenges the trial court’s determination that Flint could not be on conditional release supervision while detained under the Jimmy Ryce Act.¹ Given this court’s recent decision in Parole Commission v. Smith, 896 So.2d 966, 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), concluding that “an individual may be on conditional release supervision while detained under the Ryce Act,” we reverse.

Reversed.

NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ., concur.

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

DAVIS, Judge.

Monica David, as Chairman of the Florida Parole Commission, challenges the trial court order granting Ralph Flint, Jr.’s request for a writ of prohibition. Although this was initially filed as a petition for a writ of certiorari, this court converted it to a direct appeal.

David challenges the trial court’s determination that Flint could not be on conditional release supervision while detained under the Jimmy Ryce Act.¹ Given this court’s recent decision in Parole Commission v. Smith, 896 So.2d 966, 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), concluding that “an individual may be on conditional release supervision while detained under the Ryce Act,” we reverse.

Reversed.

NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

900 So. 2d 782, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7240, 2005 WL 1162951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-v-flint-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack