Wright v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wright v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission

420 So. 2d 902, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21433

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 19, 1982

DocketNo. AL-57

StatusPublished

This text of 420 So. 2d 902 (Wright v. Florida Parole & Probation 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

Wright v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 420 So. 2d 902, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21433 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLS, Judge.

On 24 November 1975, Wright committed the crime for which he was later convicted. He was sentenced on 12 January 1981, and, after his initial interview on 6 January 1982, the Commission applied the matrix time ranges which came into effect on 1 September 1981 in order to establish his presumptive parole release date (PPRD).

Wright now asserts that application of these new ranges violates the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal constitutions. We disagree. Lopez v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 410 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Contrary to Wright’s contentions, we do not find Lopez distinguishable. Just as in Lopez, Wright committed his crime at a time when parole was within the discretion of the Commission. Section 947.16, Florida Statutes (1975). Therefore, there is no ex post facto violation in using the guidelines in effect on the date of the interview.

Wright’s contention that the Commission usurped judicial intent in setting his PPRD is likewise without merit. Holston v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 394 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

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

MILLS, Judge.

On 24 November 1975, Wright committed the crime for which he was later convicted. He was sentenced on 12 January 1981, and, after his initial interview on 6 January 1982, the Commission applied the matrix time ranges which came into effect on 1 September 1981 in order to establish his presumptive parole release date (PPRD).

Wright now asserts that application of these new ranges violates the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal constitutions. We disagree. Lopez v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 410 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Contrary to Wright’s contentions, we do not find Lopez distinguishable. Just as in Lopez, Wright committed his crime at a time when parole was within the discretion of the Commission. Section 947.16, Florida Statutes (1975). Therefore, there is no ex post facto violation in using the guidelines in effect on the date of the interview.

Wright’s contention that the Commission usurped judicial intent in setting his PPRD is likewise without merit. Holston v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 394 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

420 So. 2d 902, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-florida-parole-probation-commission-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack