Hopkins v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hopkins v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission

422 So. 2d 1014, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21692

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 24, 1982·No. No. AL-373·Published

Opinion

JOANOS, Judge.

Appellant contends the Parole and Probation Commission (Commission) erred in assigning his presumptive parole release date (PPRD). We disagree and affirm.

Application of objective parole guidelines to appellant’s 1965 convictions does not violate the ex post facto clause. See Lopez v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 410 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

The Commission properly used the most severe crime to determine the salient factor score, then used the other counts as aggravating factors to determine appellant’s PPRD for the 1965 convictions. Fla.Admin. Code Rule 23-21.10(4)(a)(l)(h).

SHAW and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

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

JOANOS, Judge.

Appellant contends the Parole and Probation Commission (Commission) erred in assigning his presumptive parole release date (PPRD). We disagree and affirm.

Application of objective parole guidelines to appellant’s 1965 convictions does not violate the ex post facto clause. See Lopez v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 410 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

The Commission properly used the most severe crime to determine the salient factor score, then used the other counts as aggravating factors to determine appellant’s PPRD for the 1965 convictions. Fla.Admin. Code Rule 23-21.10(4)(a)(l)(h).

SHAW and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Hopkins v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 422 So. 2d 1014, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21692 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

422 So. 2d 1014 (Hopkins v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related