Enriquez v. FLORIDA PAROLE COM'N

952 So. 2d 1241, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 4887, 2007 WL 981654
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 4, 2007
Docket3D06-2379
StatusPublished

This text of 952 So. 2d 1241 (Enriquez v. FLORIDA PAROLE COM'N) 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
Enriquez v. FLORIDA PAROLE COM'N, 952 So. 2d 1241, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 4887, 2007 WL 981654 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

952 So.2d 1241 (2007)

Frank Rafael ENRIQUEZ, Appellant,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D06-2379.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 4, 2007.

Frank Rafael Enriquez, in proper person.

Anthony Andrews, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Before RAMIREZ, SHEPHERD, and ROTHENBERG, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Frank Rafael Enriquez, appeals a trial court order denying an Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition or Temporary Injunction. In the petition, Enriquez alleged he was improperly placed on conditional release while simultaneously confined under the Jimmy Ryce Act.[1] In the body of the order denying the Emergency Petition, the trial court also "barred [Enriquez] from filing any future petitions for extraordinary relief in Florida courts." Enriquez appeals only that portion of the order prohibiting future filings.

Upon review of the record, we reverse that portion of the order barring Enriquez from further filings on the ground that it was entered without affording Enriquez due process to show cause why such an order should not be entered. See Jordan v. State, 760 So.2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).[2]

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

NOTES

[1] § 394.910, Fla. Stat. (2003).

[2] The trial court's order additionally purports to prevent Enriquez from filing any pleading or petition in any case in any circuit court throughout the entire state of Florida. Because we reverse on other reasons, we need not determine the propriety of this blanket bar.

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

Related

Jordan v. State
760 So. 2d 973 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
952 So. 2d 1241, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 4887, 2007 WL 981654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enriquez-v-florida-parole-comn-fladistctapp-2007.