Starling v. Florida Parole Commission
This text of 959 So. 2d 753 (Starling 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.
Opinion
Kenneth Lee STARLING, Appellant,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Kenneth Lee Starling, pro se, Appellant.
Kim Fluharty, General Counsel, and Anthony Andrews, Assistant General, Counsel, Florida Parole Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The circuit court's order denying Kenneth Lee Starling's petition for writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that he should have sought relief by filing a petition for writ of mandamus is REVERSED. Richardson v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 924 So.2d 908, 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)(stating that inmate may seek review of a Commission order revoking conditional release "by petitions for habeas corpus or mandamus filed in the circuit court."). Upon remand, Starling should be given an opportunity to amend his petition for writ of habeas corpus to add an allegation that his conditional release was unlawfully revoked based upon the violation of a curfew condition which is imposed for crimes "committed on or after October 1, 1995," section 947.1405(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), and his offense took place several years before that date. See King v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 898 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WOLF, VAN NORTWICK, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
959 So. 2d 753, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 5776, 2007 WL 1146563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starling-v-florida-parole-commission-fladistctapp-2007.