Williams v. Florida Parole Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Williams v. Florida Parole Commission

928 So. 2d 488, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 6905, 2006 WL 1210156

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 8, 2006

DocketNo. 1D05-3621

StatusPublished

This text of 928 So. 2d 488 (Williams 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

Williams v. Florida Parole Commission, 928 So. 2d 488, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 6905, 2006 WL 1210156 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Charles Williams timely seeks certiorari review of an order denying his petition for writ of mandamus. We conclude that the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law when it denied relief concerning the Parole Commission’s decision to decline to authorize petitioner’s effective parole release date and to suspend his presumptive parole release date, and deny the petition insofar as it is directed to that issue.

In addition, Williams unsuccessfully claimed below that the Parole Commission had deviated from the requirements of its own rules when it elected to schedule his next extraordinary interview within five years, rather than within two years of the date of his effective parole release date interview. We treat respondent’s “motion for remand” as a concession that under the terms of rule 23-21.0155(3), Florida Administrative Code, Williams is entitled to relief as to this claim. See Rivera v. Moore, 825 So.2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (mandamus will lie to compel an administrative agency to follow its own rules). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari in part, quash the portion of the circuit court’s order denying relief as to this claim, and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND REMANDED.

BARFIELD, DAVIS, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Charles Williams timely seeks certiorari review of an order denying his petition for writ of mandamus. We conclude that the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law when it denied relief concerning the Parole Commission’s decision to decline to authorize petitioner’s effective parole release date and to suspend his presumptive parole release date, and deny the petition insofar as it is directed to that issue.

In addition, Williams unsuccessfully claimed below that the Parole Commission had deviated from the requirements of its own rules when it elected to schedule his next extraordinary interview within five years, rather than within two years of the date of his effective parole release date interview. We treat respondent’s “motion for remand” as a concession that under the terms of rule 23-21.0155(3), Florida Administrative Code, Williams is entitled to relief as to this claim. See Rivera v. Moore, 825 So.2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (mandamus will lie to compel an administrative agency to follow its own rules). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari in part, quash the portion of the circuit court’s order denying relief as to this claim, and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND REMANDED.

BARFIELD, DAVIS, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

928 So. 2d 488, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 6905, 2006 WL 1210156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-florida-parole-commission-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack