Florida Parole Commission v. Brown

989 So. 2d 723, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 12662, 2008 WL 3913959
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 27, 2008
DocketNo. 1D07-4983
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 989 So. 2d 723 (Florida Parole Commission v. Brown) 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
Florida Parole Commission v. Brown, 989 So. 2d 723, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 12662, 2008 WL 3913959 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We grant the Florida Parole Commission’s petition for writ of certiorari and quash the circuit court’s order remanding to the Commission to reconsider its parole decision.

A decision by the Parole Commission to suspend an inmate’s presumptive parole release date and defer setting an effective parole release date can be set aside by a court only for demonstrated abuse in the exercise of the Commission’s discretion. See Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm’n v. Paige, 462 So.2d 817 (Fla.1985); see also Fla. Parole Comm’n v. Huckelbury, 903 So.2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). An abuse of discretion may be established in various ways, including a showing that the Commission deviated from the legal requirements imposed upon it, such as the obligation to review the inmate’s complete record and to articulate the basis for its decision. Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 625 So.2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). An abuse of discretion also occurs if the denial of parole is based upon illegal grounds or improper considerations. Id. at 937; see also Moore v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm’n, 289 So.2d 719 (Fla.1974). Hepe, respondent did not show that the Commission deviated from the legal requirements imposed upon it, and the record likewise fails to establish that the Commission based its decision upon illegal grounds or improper considerations. We therefore conclude that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law when it directed the Parole Commission to reconsider its decision.

Accordingly, the circuit court’s order is QUASHED, and this matter is REMAND[725]*725ED for further proceedings consistent herewith.

BARFIELD, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Earley v. Florida Commission on Offender Review
152 So. 3d 691 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Thomas v. Florida Parole Commission
107 So. 3d 517 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Alday v. Florida Parole Commission
58 So. 3d 327 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
989 So. 2d 723, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 12662, 2008 WL 3913959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-parole-commission-v-brown-fladistctapp-2008.