Johnson v. Florida Parole Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Johnson v. Florida Parole Commission

873 So. 2d 611, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7564, 2004 WL 1176239

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 28, 2004·No. No. 1D03-3830·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As respondent concedes, the circuit court erred in entering a final order prior to expiration of the time for the filing of a reply by petitioner. See Bard v. Wolson, 687 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Accordingly, the circuit court’s order is quashed and this cause is remanded with directions to reconsider the matter after petitioner is afforded the opportunity to file a reply. However, we find no merit to petitioner’s argument that the trial judge’s actions are indicative of bias, and we therefore reject his contention that the proceedings on remand should be conducted before a different judge.

WEBSTER, VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

As respondent concedes, the circuit court erred in entering a final order prior to expiration of the time for the filing of a reply by petitioner. See Bard v. Wolson, 687 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Accordingly, the circuit court’s order is quashed and this cause is remanded with directions to reconsider the matter after petitioner is afforded the opportunity to file a reply. However, we find no merit to petitioner’s argument that the trial judge’s actions are indicative of bias, and we therefore reject his contention that the proceedings on remand should be conducted before a different judge.

WEBSTER, VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Johnson v. Florida Parole Commission, 873 So. 2d 611, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7564, 2004 WL 1176239 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

873 So. 2d 611 (Johnson v. Florida Parole Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related