WILFRED KNOX, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, APPELLEE
WILFRED KNOX, APPELLANT,
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, APPELLEE
825 So. 2d 958
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2002)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Westberry v. Moore, 772 So. 2d 1208, 1209 (Fla.2000) (holding that a defendant who accepts the benefits of control release waives any argument that application of the control release program, in the form of the forfeiture of gain time, was an ex post violation because control release was enacted after the date of his or her offenses); Bowles v. Singletary, 698 So. 2d 1201, 1204 (Fla.1997) (“[A]n affirmative election to accept a newly created program waives any potential ex post facto argument the petitioner may have had.”).
WOLF, KAHN and BENTON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knox v. State, 873 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…is or her offense.); Bowles v. Singletary, 698 So. 2d 1201, 1204, (Fla.1997) (“[A]n affirmative election to accept a newly created program waives any potential ex post facto argument the petitioner may have had.”) Knox v. Florida Parole Commission, 825 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The trial court below correctly concluded that relitigation of this matter is barred by the doctrine of collateral estop-pel or issue preclusion. Collateral estop-pel prevents identical parties and their privies from relitigati…
Authorities Cited
- Bowles v. Singletary, 698 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1997)
- Westberry v. Moore, 772 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 2000)