Harvard v. Florida Parole Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harvard v. Florida Parole Commission

782 So. 2d 904, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2506, 2001 WL 223286

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 2001

DocketNo. 1D99-4014

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 782 So. 2d 904 (Harvard 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

Harvard v. Florida Parole Commission, 782 So. 2d 904, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2506, 2001 WL 223286 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In his petition for writ of certiorari, William Harvard seeks review of an order of the circuit court denying his petition styled “Petition to Invoke All Writs.” By his petition to the circuit court, Harvard challenged the presumptive parole release date (PPRD) set by the Florida Parole Commission; arguing that the Commission erred in setting a PPRD different than the PPRD recommended by the parole examiner. The cases cited by Harvard are inapposite, as these cases concern the Commission setting a second PPRD based upon factors considered in establishing the first PPRD. By contrast, in the instant case, the Commission has set only one PPRD and the Commission is not bound by the recommendation of the parole examiner. See Dornau v. Florida Parole and Probation Comm’n, 420 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he was denied due process of law or that the circuit court applied the incorrect law. See Sheley v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 720 So.2d 216 (Fla.1998).

The petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED.

BOOTH, KAHN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In his petition for writ of certiorari, William Harvard seeks review of an order of the circuit court denying his petition styled “Petition to Invoke All Writs.” By his petition to the circuit court, Harvard challenged the presumptive parole release date (PPRD) set by the Florida Parole Commission; arguing that the Commission erred in setting a PPRD different than the PPRD recommended by the parole examiner. The cases cited by Harvard are inapposite, as these cases concern the Commission setting a second PPRD based upon factors considered in establishing the first PPRD. By contrast, in the instant case, the Commission has set only one PPRD and the Commission is not bound by the recommendation of the parole examiner. See Dornau v. Florida Parole and Probation Comm’n, 420 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he was denied due process of law or that the circuit court applied the incorrect law. See Sheley v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 720 So.2d 216 (Fla.1998).

The petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED.

BOOTH, KAHN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

782 So. 2d 904, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2506, 2001 WL 223286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvard-v-florida-parole-commission-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack