ALBERT E. LOWE, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Administrative Procedure Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case was transferred to this court from the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County pursuant to the rationale of Daniels v. Florida Parole & Probation Comm’n, 401 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), holding that a determination by the Florida Parole & Probation Commission may be reviewed by the prisoner taking an administrative appeal to the appropriate district court of appeal.
However, this court agreed with the rationale of Roberson v. Florida Parole & Probation Comm’n, 407 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) because of the express provision in the Florida Administrative Procedure Act stating that prisoners shall not be considered parties for the purposes of obtaining proceedings under the act. See, section 120.52(10)(d), Florida Statutes (1981).
Therefore, the correct procedure for obtaining review of determinations by the Florida Parole & Probation Commission remains the filing of a petition for writ of mandamus or habeas corpus in the circuit court where incarcerated. See Wainwright v. Holley, 234 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Habeas would be the proper remedy if the prisoner contended that under his calculations his time had already expired. If it were contended that the commission’s calculations were incorrect but that even under the prisoner’s calculations he was not entitled to immediate release, mandamus would be the proper remedy.
Therefore, this petition for writ of mandamus is hereby transferred to the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County for consideration and determination.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Valdez-Garcia v. State, 965 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…cause those matters do not involve a collateral attack [*322] of the judgment and sentence, such as: (1) to attack computations of gain time and other determinations of the parole and probation commission, see Lowe v. Fla. Parole & Probation Comm’n, 416 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); (2) to test pretrial detention and the denial of pretrial bond or excessive pretrial bond, see State ex rel. Hanks v. Goodman, 253 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1971); Medina v. Sandstrom, 384 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); (3) to determine th…
-
State v. Broom, 523 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…all because those matters do not involve a collateral attack of the judgment and sentence, such as: (1) to attack computations of gain time and other determinations of the parole and probation commission, see Lowe v. Fla. Parole & Probation Comm’n, 416 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); (2) to test pretrial detention and the denial of pretrial bond or excessive pretrial bond, see State ex rel. Hanks v. Goodman, 253 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1971); Medina v. Sandstrom, 384 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); (3) to determine th…
-
Rothermel v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 441 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…289 So. 2d 719 (Fla.1974); James v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 395 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Harrison v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 428 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Lowe v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 416 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1982); Pannier v. Wainwright, 423 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Finally, we address the recent decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Roberson v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, supra. There, the Court approved this Court…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Daniels v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 401 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Louie L. Wainwright v. Holley, 234 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- In re The Est. OF Stephen Ciccorella v. Arleigh P. Ciccorella, 407 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)