MELVIN CARSWELL, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT
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.
The court granted certiorari and remanded because the circuit court failed to follow the appellate mandate requiring the Parole Commission to demonstrate it would have revoked petitioner's conditional release solely on condition 2(c) violation, and the Commission was estopped from relying on condition 7 after failing to dispute it in the prior appeal.
The circuit court must remand to the Florida Parole Commission to determine whether it would have revoked petitioner's conditional release supervision solely on the basis of condition 2(c) violation, as the Commission is estopped from relying on condition 7 after failing to dispute it in the prior appeal.
[1] A parole commission is estopped from relying on a ground for revocation that it failed to dispute in a prior appeal when the appellate court's mandate requires it to demo…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner sought certiorari review of a circuit court order denying his habeas corpus petition challenging revocation of his conditional release supe…
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 Parole Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order denying his petition for writ of ha-beas corpus. He argues that the circuit court did not comply with this court’s mandate in Carswell v. Florida Parole Commission, 861 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
We agree and grant the petition. This court previously stated that if the Florida Parole Commission failed to show that it would have revoked petitioner’s conditional release supervision solely on a violation of condition 2(c), then the circuit court should remand to the Commission for further proceedings.
The circuit court failed to follow the mandate of this court and determined that competent, substantial evidence existed in the record to support a violation of both conditions as alleged. In the previous appeal, the Commission did not dispute petitioner’s arguments on the violation of condition 7.
Therefore, it is estopped from arguing that revocation was proper on the basis of a violation of condition 7. As the record does not make clear that the Commission would still have revoked petitioner’s conditional release supervision solely on the basis of condition 2(c), we remand with directions that the circuit court remand to the Florida Parole Commission for further proceedings. See Lee v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 730 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
BARFIELD, BROWNING and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LEE v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 730 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Carswell v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 861 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)