Woolbright v. Florida Parole Commission
922 So. 2d 1039, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 2886, 2006 WL 504057
Opinion
The petitioner, challenging the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus, has not met his burden to show that the trial court failed to afford due process and departed from the essential requirements of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. See Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 703 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approved, 720 So.2d 216 (Fla.1998); Tedder v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 842 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Woolbright v. Florida Parole Commission, 922 So. 2d 1039, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 2886, 2006 WL 504057 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).
922 So. 2d 1039 (Woolbright v. Florida Parole Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sheley v. FLORIDA PAROLE COM'N
703 So. 2d 1202 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Sheley v. Florida Parole Com'n
720 So. 2d 216 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1998)
Tedder v. FLORIDA PAROLE COM'N
842 So. 2d 1022 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)