Gorman v. Florida Parole Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gorman v. Florida Parole Commission

817 So. 2d 940, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6871, 2002 WL 1022113

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 22, 2002

DocketNo. 1D01-3496

StatusPublished

This text of 817 So. 2d 940 (Gorman 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

Gorman v. Florida Parole Commission, 817 So. 2d 940, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6871, 2002 WL 1022113 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, an inmate of the state correctional system, seeks review of an order dismissing a pleading titled a petition for writ of habeas corpus for failure to pay the filing fee. The trial court found that the petition did not allege entitlement to immediate release from incarceration and, accordingly, treated it as seeking mandamus rather than habeas corpus. While the petition is far from a model of clarity, it appears to us that appellant has alleged that he is entitled to immediate release because, according to him, had his period of control release supervision been properly calculated, it would have terminated before issuance of the control release supervision retake order and arrest warrant. Accordingly, we conclude that the petition should be treated as one seeking habeas corpus. Because petitions seeking habeas corpus are constitutionally exempt from all court costs and filing fees pursuant to article I, section 13, of the Florida Constitution, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court reinstate appellant’s petition.

[941]*941REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

BARFIELD, WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, an inmate of the state correctional system, seeks review of an order dismissing a pleading titled a petition for writ of habeas corpus for failure to pay the filing fee. The trial court found that the petition did not allege entitlement to immediate release from incarceration and, accordingly, treated it as seeking mandamus rather than habeas corpus. While the petition is far from a model of clarity, it appears to us that appellant has alleged that he is entitled to immediate release because, according to him, had his period of control release supervision been properly calculated, it would have terminated before issuance of the control release supervision retake order and arrest warrant. Accordingly, we conclude that the petition should be treated as one seeking habeas corpus. Because petitions seeking habeas corpus are constitutionally exempt from all court costs and filing fees pursuant to article I, section 13, of the Florida Constitution, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court reinstate appellant’s petition.

[941]*941REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

BARFIELD, WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

817 So. 2d 940, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6871, 2002 WL 1022113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorman-v-florida-parole-commission-fladistctapp-2002.