Jackson v. FLORIDA PAROLE COM'N

970 So. 2d 881, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 19956, 2007 WL 4372792
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 17, 2007
Docket1D07-2748
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 970 So. 2d 881 (Jackson v. FLORIDA PAROLE COM'N) 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
Jackson v. FLORIDA PAROLE COM'N, 970 So. 2d 881, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 19956, 2007 WL 4372792 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

970 So.2d 881 (2007)

David E. JACKSON, Petitioner,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 1D07-2748.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 17, 2007.

*882 David E. Jackson, pro se, Petitioner.

Kim M. Fluharty, General Counsel, and Bradley R. Bischoff, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Parole Commission, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review of the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus under Sheley v. Florida Parole Commission, 720 So.2d 216 (Fla.1998). Because the facts of this case are substantially similar to Mathis v. Florida Parole Commission, 944 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), we grant the petition for writ of certiorari.

The Florida Parole Commission issued a warrant charging petitioner with violating the terms of conditional release supervision. The hearing examiner found petitioner guilty of violating a special condition of supervision by driving alone without the approval of his conditional release officer. Based on that finding, the Parole Commission revoked petitioner's conditional release. Neither the hearing examiner's disposition recommendation nor the Parole Commission's revocation order contained a finding that petitioner's action constituted a willful violation of a substantial condition of conditional release supervision. In Mathis, this court held that absent such a finding, the circuit court could not have reviewed the proceedings and determined that they were supported by competent substantial evidence and, because the circuit court did not apply the correct law, it could not have observed the essential requirements of the law. Accord Houck v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 953 So.2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the circuit court's order and remand for further proceedings.

BROWNING, C.J., KAHN and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Williams v. State
970 So. 2d 881 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
970 So. 2d 881, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 19956, 2007 WL 4372792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-florida-parole-comn-fladistctapp-2007.