Russell v. Florida Parole Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Russell v. Florida Parole Commission

946 So. 2d 32, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 15421, 2006 WL 2658661

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 18, 2006

DocketNo. 1D06-0431

StatusPublished

This text of 946 So. 2d 32 (Russell v. Florida Parole 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

Russell v. Florida Parole Commission, 946 So. 2d 32, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 15421, 2006 WL 2658661 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWNING, J.

The respondent revoked the petitioner’s parole based on his admission of having used cocaine during his period of parole, in violation of Condition (4)(b) of his terms and conditions of parole. In a petition for writ of certiorari, the petitioner seeks review of a final order of the circuit court, sitting in its review capacity, denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the parole revocation. Because the petition filed in the circuit court failed to set out a prima facie basis for relief, the court had no proper basis to issue a show-cause order, and it did not do so. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.630(d); Russell v. McGlothin, 427 So.2d 280, 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (“A probationer’s admissions against interest may, as a matter of law, be sufficient to revoke his probation.”). Petitioner has not met his burden to show entitlement to certiorari relief in this second-tier review. See generally Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 703 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approved, 720 So.2d 216 (Fla.1998). Accordingly, the petition is DENIED.

BARFIELD and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

BROWNING, J.

The respondent revoked the petitioner’s parole based on his admission of having used cocaine during his period of parole, in violation of Condition (4)(b) of his terms and conditions of parole. In a petition for writ of certiorari, the petitioner seeks review of a final order of the circuit court, sitting in its review capacity, denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the parole revocation. Because the petition filed in the circuit court failed to set out a prima facie basis for relief, the court had no proper basis to issue a show-cause order, and it did not do so. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.630(d); Russell v. McGlothin, 427 So.2d 280, 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (“A probationer’s admissions against interest may, as a matter of law, be sufficient to revoke his probation.”). Petitioner has not met his burden to show entitlement to certiorari relief in this second-tier review. See generally Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 703 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approved, 720 So.2d 216 (Fla.1998). Accordingly, the petition is DENIED.

BARFIELD and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

946 So. 2d 32, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 15421, 2006 WL 2658661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-florida-parole-commission-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack