CHARLES WILLIAMS, 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 in part, quashing the circuit court's denial of mandamus relief regarding the Parole Commission's failure to follow its own rule requiring an extraordinary interview within two years rather than five years.
Mandamus will lie to compel an administrative agency to follow its own rules, and the Parole Commission violated rule 23-21.0155(3), Florida Administrative Code, by scheduling Williams's next extraordinary interview within five years instead of two years.
[1] Mandamus will lie to compel an administrative agency to follow its own procedural rules regarding the timing of parole interviews.
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 intelligence“mandamus will lie to compel an administrative agency to follow its own rules”
Court's statement of applicable law regarding when mandamus relief is available against administrative agencies
Charles Williams sought mandamus relief challenging the Parole Commission's decision to decline his effective parole release date and suspend his pres…
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 Effective Parole Release Date cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Charles Williams timely seeks certiorari review of an order denying his petition for writ of mandamus. We conclude that the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law when it denied relief concerning the Parole Commission’s decision to decline to authorize petitioner’s effective parole release date and to suspend his presumptive parole release date, and deny the petition insofar as it is directed to that issue.
In addition, Williams unsuccessfully claimed below that the Parole Commission had deviated from the requirements of its own rules when it elected to schedule his next extraordinary interview within five years, rather than within two years of the date of his effective parole release date interview. We treat respondent’s “motion for remand” as a concession that under the terms of rule 23-21.0155(3), Florida Administrative Code, Williams is entitled to relief as to this claim. See Rivera v. Moore, 825 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (mandamus will lie to compel an administrative agency to follow its own rules). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari in part, quash the portion of the circuit court’s order denying relief as to this claim, and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND REMANDED.
BARFIELD, DAVIS, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.