Horsted v. Florida Parole Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Horsted v. Florida Parole Commission

673 So. 2d 891, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4588, 1996 WL 218175

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 2, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2734

StatusPublished

This text of 673 So. 2d 891 (Horsted 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

Horsted v. Florida Parole Commission, 673 So. 2d 891, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4588, 1996 WL 218175 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. § 947.18, Fla.Stat. (1993); Rule 23-21.001, et seq., Fla.Admin.Code (rules implementing statutory guidelines for Commission’s responsibilities); Dugger v. Grant, 610 So.2d 428, 432 (Fla.1992) (“only a modicum of evidence is necessary to support an administrative decision regarding inmates even when such a decision does involve due process rights”); Parole & Probation Commission v. Bruce, 471 So.2d 7 (Fla.1985); Florida Parole & Probation Commission v. Paige, 462 So.2d 817, 819-20 (Fla.1985) (Commission has ultimate discretion in deciding whether to parole); McCorvey v..Florida Parole Commission, 625 So.2d 1296, 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (suspension of defendant’s presumptive parole release date on basis of information previously considered when presumptive release date was set is not an abuse of discretion); May v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 435 So.2d 834 (Fla.1983); Johnson v. Florida Parole Commission, 639 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

ALLEN, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. § 947.18, Fla.Stat. (1993); Rule 23-21.001, et seq., Fla.Admin.Code (rules implementing statutory guidelines for Commission’s responsibilities); Dugger v. Grant, 610 So.2d 428, 432 (Fla.1992) (“only a modicum of evidence is necessary to support an administrative decision regarding inmates even when such a decision does involve due process rights”); Parole & Probation Commission v. Bruce, 471 So.2d 7 (Fla.1985); Florida Parole & Probation Commission v. Paige, 462 So.2d 817, 819-20 (Fla.1985) (Commission has ultimate discretion in deciding whether to parole); McCorvey v..Florida Parole Commission, 625 So.2d 1296, 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (suspension of defendant’s presumptive parole release date on basis of information previously considered when presumptive release date was set is not an abuse of discretion); May v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 435 So.2d 834 (Fla.1983); Johnson v. Florida Parole Commission, 639 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

ALLEN, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

673 So. 2d 891, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4588, 1996 WL 218175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horsted-v-florida-parole-commission-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack