Priester v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Priester v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission

434 So. 2d 1008, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19863

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 15, 1983

DocketNo. AR-222

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 434 So. 2d 1008 (Priester 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

Priester v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 434 So. 2d 1008, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19863 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals an order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus, by which he sought review of the Florida Parole and Probation Commission’s action in setting his presumptive parole release date (PPRD). We agree with the action of the lower court, Daniels v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 401 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), but note that the Commission made a computational error in setting appellant’s PPRD. The Commission has the authority to correct an obvious clerical mistake or computational error in the setting of an inmate’s PPRD, and such correction should be made on proper application to the Commission. See Moore v. Florida Parole [1009]*1009and Probation Commission, 415 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We affirm.

MILLS, BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals an order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus, by which he sought review of the Florida Parole and Probation Commission’s action in setting his presumptive parole release date (PPRD). We agree with the action of the lower court, Daniels v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 401 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), but note that the Commission made a computational error in setting appellant’s PPRD. The Commission has the authority to correct an obvious clerical mistake or computational error in the setting of an inmate’s PPRD, and such correction should be made on proper application to the Commission. See Moore v. Florida Parole [1009]*1009and Probation Commission, 415 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We affirm.

MILLS, BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

434 So. 2d 1008, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/priester-v-florida-parole-probation-commission-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack