Strong v. Florida Parole Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Strong v. Florida Parole Commission

916 So. 2d 51, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 19291, 2005 WL 3328170

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 9, 2005

DocketNo. 1D05-2319

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 916 So. 2d 51 (Strong 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

Strong v. Florida Parole Commission, 916 So. 2d 51, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 19291, 2005 WL 3328170 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As the Florida Parole Commission subsequently restored petitioner to supervision, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied as moot. To the extent that petitioner argues that he was never released from custody and was erroneously alleged to have violated his conditional release supervision, this issue was not presented to the circuit court and, therefore, cannot be addressed in this proceeding. See, e.g., Perez v. Winn-Dixie, 639 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Parlier v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 622 So.2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)(stating that as a general rule of appellate procedure, based on a practical necessity and fairness to the opposing party and the circuit judge, issues that are not timely raised before the circuit court will not be considered on appeal).

ERVIN, DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

As the Florida Parole Commission subsequently restored petitioner to supervision, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied as moot. To the extent that petitioner argues that he was never released from custody and was erroneously alleged to have violated his conditional release supervision, this issue was not presented to the circuit court and, therefore, cannot be addressed in this proceeding. See, e.g., Perez v. Winn-Dixie, 639 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Parlier v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 622 So.2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)(stating that as a general rule of appellate procedure, based on a practical necessity and fairness to the opposing party and the circuit judge, issues that are not timely raised before the circuit court will not be considered on appeal).

ERVIN, DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

916 So. 2d 51, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 19291, 2005 WL 3328170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strong-v-florida-parole-commission-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack