Richardson v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Richardson v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission

417 So. 2d 727, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20504

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 13, 1982

DocketNo. AH-436

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 417 So. 2d 727 (Richardson 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

Richardson v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 417 So. 2d 727, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20504 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

SHIVERS, Judge.

This appeal challenges action by the Florida Parole and Probation Commission establishing a presumptive parole release date. This court has emphasized the Commission’s statutory and rule obligation to adequately explain its decision to aggravate a prisoner’s presumptive parole release date. Baker v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 384 So.2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Battis v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 386 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). This appeal arose primarily because the Commission initially did not explain its decision to aggravate. We affirm the Commission’s action only because it provided a marginally acceptable explanation of its action in an amendment one day before appellant filed his notice of appeal. The Commission is directed to comply with the letter and spirit of the statute and rules requiring an adequate explanation of its decisions.

McCORD and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

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

SHIVERS, Judge.

This appeal challenges action by the Florida Parole and Probation Commission establishing a presumptive parole release date. This court has emphasized the Commission’s statutory and rule obligation to adequately explain its decision to aggravate a prisoner’s presumptive parole release date. Baker v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 384 So.2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Battis v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 386 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). This appeal arose primarily because the Commission initially did not explain its decision to aggravate. We affirm the Commission’s action only because it provided a marginally acceptable explanation of its action in an amendment one day before appellant filed his notice of appeal. The Commission is directed to comply with the letter and spirit of the statute and rules requiring an adequate explanation of its decisions.

McCORD and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 So. 2d 727, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-florida-parole-probation-commission-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack