Morris v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morris v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission

423 So. 2d 491, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21785

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 14, 1982

DocketNo. AM-13

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 423 So. 2d 491 (Morris v. Florida Parole & Probation 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

Morris v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 423 So. 2d 491, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21785 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Morris appeals the commission’s action in determining his presumptive parole release date. We affirm.

Following Morris’ initial conviction on two grand larceny counts, his probation and revocation thereof resulting from his guilty plea to additional counts of second degree grand larceny, the commission set a new presumptive date for release. Morris urged two grounds for further review which the commission promptly explained and corrected in that process. Morris would now have this Court strike the aggravating factors due to the commission’s initial error, but despite the commission having taken timely action to cure the defects.

The commission must be permitted to correct its errors and oversights in an orderly manner pursuant to administrative procedures. The corrections were made pri- or to Morris seeking this Court’s review of the commission’s action to correct its acknowledged error. Zygadlo v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 414 So.2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

The issues that may be raised on appeal from the commission’s setting of a presumptive parole release date are limited to those issues presented to the commission. Daniels v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 401 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Morris, not having met this requirement, will not be permitted to present them for our initial review.

SHAW and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

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

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Morris appeals the commission’s action in determining his presumptive parole release date. We affirm.

Following Morris’ initial conviction on two grand larceny counts, his probation and revocation thereof resulting from his guilty plea to additional counts of second degree grand larceny, the commission set a new presumptive date for release. Morris urged two grounds for further review which the commission promptly explained and corrected in that process. Morris would now have this Court strike the aggravating factors due to the commission’s initial error, but despite the commission having taken timely action to cure the defects.

The commission must be permitted to correct its errors and oversights in an orderly manner pursuant to administrative procedures. The corrections were made pri- or to Morris seeking this Court’s review of the commission’s action to correct its acknowledged error. Zygadlo v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 414 So.2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

The issues that may be raised on appeal from the commission’s setting of a presumptive parole release date are limited to those issues presented to the commission. Daniels v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 401 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Morris, not having met this requirement, will not be permitted to present them for our initial review.

SHAW and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 So. 2d 491, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-florida-parole-probation-commission-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack