DOUGLASS J. ARLOTTA, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Arlotta appealed a Florida Parole and Probation Commission decision regarding his parole review. The appellate court struck Arlotta's appendix containing documents not presented to the Commission during the initial review, holding that judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act is limited to the record compiled by the agency.
Documents not made part of the administrative record and not presented to the agency for consideration cannot be considered by the appellate court on review. The appendix was struck, and the court's function under the Administrative Procedure Act is limited to reviewing whether agency action is supported by the record compiled by the agency.
[1] The record for judicial review of agency action must contain the final order and documents considered by the agency prior to its action.
[2] Documents not made part of the agency record and not presented to the agency for consideration cannot be considered by a reviewing court.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This Court's function under the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, is to review agency action to determine if it is supported by the record. Documents not made part of the record and not presented to the agency for consideration cannot be considered by this Court.”
Establishes the core holding that judicial review is limited to the administrative record compiled by the agency
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArlotta sought judicial review of a Florida Parole and Probation Commission decision under § 947.173. He submitted an appendix to his appellate brief …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Review Of Agency Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have before us appellee’s motion to accept late brief, appellant’s motion for sanctions for appellee’s tardy service of the answer brief, and appellee’s motion to strike appellant’s appendix in that the documents contained therein are not part of the record and were not presented to the Florida Parole and Probation Commission (Commission) for its consideration during Arlot-ta’s § 947.173, Fla.Stat. (1981), review. Appellant contends that the documents are in his Department of Corrections file and should have been considered by the Commission, so should be before the Court. Ap-pellee contends that to admit the appendix would result in the Court having to decide factual issues. We grant appellee’s motion to accept a late brief, deny appellant’s motion for sanctions, and grant, for the following reasons, appellee’s motion to strike appellant’s appendix.
Section 120.68(5)(c), Fla.Stat. (1981), dictates that the record for judicial review be compiled by the agency and that it contain the final order plus documents considered by the agency prior to its action. Theoretically, Arlotta cannot know if the documents contained in his appendix are in his Department of Corrections file, because § 945.10(2), Fla.Stat. (1981), prohibits revealing the contents of the Department of Corrections file to the inmate. Further, even if the documents are in his Department of Corrections file, that is no guarantee that the Commission was aware of them.
Section 947.173(1), Fla.Stat. (1981), requires the inmate to set forth “in writing, with individual particularities,” the reasons for the review request. If Arlotta takes issue with factual predicates relied upon by the Commission in its action, he should have done so at his § 947.173 review; the documents in question should have been presented to the Commission at that time. See Bizzigotti v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 410 So. 2d 1360, 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
This Court’s function under the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, is to review agency action to determine if it is supported by the record. Documents not made part of the record and not presented to the agency for consideration cannot be considered by this Court.1 Accordingly, appellant’s appendix to his initial brief is stricken.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. . This action does not preclude appellant Arlot-ta from submitting the documents to the Commission for consideration as new information. Section 947.174(2), Fla.Stat. (1981), permits the Commission to grant special reviews in its discretion and when it determines that it is appropriate to review. See McClain v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 416 So. 2d 1209, 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doyle v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Mid-State Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 635 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…pril 1st overage. Indeed, it is obvious from the record that her testimony was based on her referring to documentation which was never identified, properly authenticated, or introduced into evidence. See Arlotta v. Florida Parole & Probation Comm’n, 419 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (in reviewing agency action, appellate court cannot consider documents not made part of the record). We have also reviewed the testimony of Doyle to determine if it establishes miseon-duct on her part pursuant to the statute. Su…
Authorities Cited
- McCLAIN v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 416 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Bizzigotti v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 410 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)