LLEO v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

LLEO v. State

41 So. 3d 1106, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12191, 2010 WL 3239129

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 18, 2010

Docket3D10-1562

StatusPublished

This text of 41 So. 3d 1106 (LLEO v. State) 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

LLEO v. State, 41 So. 3d 1106, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12191, 2010 WL 3239129 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, J.

Carlos Lleo (“Lleo”) appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to address Lleo’s challenge to the Florida Parole Commission’s (“the Commission”) revocation of his conditional release. Because we agree with Lleo that the trial court erred in concluding it was without jurisdiction, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for consideration of Lleo’s petition on the merits.

A challenge to the Commission’s decision to revoke conditional release and the petitioner’s claim that he is entitled to immediate release is properly brought by a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Barrera v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 987 So.2d 810, 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Stanley v. Moore, 744 So.2d 1160, 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Section 79.09, Florida Statutes (2009), requires the inmate to file his/her habeas corpus petition with the clerk of the circuit court of the county in which he/she is detained. See Broom v. State, 907 So.2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Perkins v. State, 766 So.2d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Reversed and remanded.

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

ROTHENBERG, J.

Carlos Lleo (“Lleo”) appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to address Lleo’s challenge to the Florida Parole Commission’s (“the Commission”) revocation of his conditional release. Because we agree with Lleo that the trial court erred in concluding it was without jurisdiction, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for consideration of Lleo’s petition on the merits.

A challenge to the Commission’s decision to revoke conditional release and the petitioner’s claim that he is entitled to immediate release is properly brought by a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Barrera v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 987 So.2d 810, 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Stanley v. Moore, 744 So.2d 1160, 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Section 79.09, Florida Statutes (2009), requires the inmate to file his/her habeas corpus petition with the clerk of the circuit court of the county in which he/she is detained. See Broom v. State, 907 So.2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Perkins v. State, 766 So.2d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 So. 3d 1106, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12191, 2010 WL 3239129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lleo-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack