GLENN BATTLE, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW, 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.
Glenn Battle, an inmate, appealed the dismissal of his mandamus petition challenging the Florida Commission on Offender Review's decision to maintain his parole release date. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding the petition moot because the Commission corrected the mischaracterization of Battle's offense from "armed robbery" to "robbery," and the decision was based on other factors unrelated to the offense designation.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the mandamus petition was properly dismissed as moot because the mischaracterization was corrected. Even if considered on the merits, the incorrect offense designation did not affect the Commission's decision to maintain the PPRD, which was based on other factors, nor did it affect the seven-year review cycle, which is mandated by statute.
[1] A petition for a writ of mandamus seeking review of a quasi-judicial action is properly reviewed by a petition for writ of certiorari.
[2] A direct appeal is the appropriate method for reviewing the denial of mandamus relief when the denial is based on grounds other than the merits of the case.
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“the incorrect listing of appellant's offense, therefore, was not a basis for the Commission's decision to leave unchanged the PPRD”
Establishes that even if the offense mischaracterization was improper, it was not the basis for the Commission's decision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBattle was an inmate challenging the Commission's May 5, 2014 order affirming a hearing examiner's recommendation to maintain his presumptive parole r…
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 Presumptive Parole Release Date cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Glenn Battle appeals an order dismissing a petition for a writ of mandamus. We affirm.
By the mandamus petition, appellant, an inmate, sought an order directing the Commission on Offender Review (Commission) to reconsider its decision of May 5, 2014, which affirmed the, recommendation of the hearing examiner thát there be no change in appellant’s presumptive parole release date (PPRD) arid which noted that appellant’s next review would occur in seven years given the offense at conviction which the Commission described as “Robbery Gun/Deadly Weapon.” In fact, appellant had been convicted of robbery, not armed robbery, and thus appellant argued, the Commission’s decision was based on an illegal ground. After the mandamus petition was filed, a new order from the Commission entered which listed the offense as “Robbery.” Given this new order, the petition for mandamus relief was moot, the trial court ruled. In addition, the trial court noted that the decision to leave the PPRD unchanged was premised on three factors:- the trauma experienced, by the victim, the prior parole violation committed by appellant, and the unreasonable risk appellant posed to others. The incorrect listing of appellant’s offense, therefore, was not a basis for the Commission’s *12decision to leave unchanged the PPRD. Furthermore, the seven-year period between reviews is established by section 947.174(l)(b), Florida Statutes, which provides for a review every seven years for multiple offenses, including “robbery.”
We find no basis to reverse. The trial court correctly held that the misstatement as to the nature of appellant’s conviction, which was corrected, did not affect the decision to leave the PPRD unchanged was not premised on the mischaracterization of appellant’s offense; further, the trial court correctly determined that the 7-year review cycle in appellant’s cause is established by section 947.174(l)(b).
A brief explanation is warranted as to why a direct appeal of the trial court’s order, rather than a petition for writ of certiorari, is the appropriate avenue of review. When a petition for a writ of mandamus seeks review of a quasi-judicial action, the proper method of reviewing the denial of mandamus relief is by way of a petition for a writ of certiorari. See Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 720 So.2d 216 (Fla.1998). However, a direct appeal is appropriate when mandamus relief has been denied for a reason other than the merits. See Walker v. Ellis, 989 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Green v. Moore, 777 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
In the cause before us, the trial court dismissed the mandamus petition as moot because the ground on which relief was sought — the mischaracterization of appellant’s conviction — was corrected by the Commission. As the denial of mandamus relief was not on the merits, direct review is appropriate. However, as the trial court seems to have suggested, mandamus could have been denied on the merits given the fact that the mischaracterization of appellant’s conviction had no bearing on the decision not to revisit appellant’s PPRD (which was based on 3 factors apart from the offense at conviction) nor on the 7-year review cycle (which was mandated section 947.174(l)(b)). Thus, direct appeal was appropriate in the instant case.
AFFIRMED.
THOMAS and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nyberg v. Fla. Comm'n on Offender Review, 196 So. 3d 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…eview on the merits, see Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 720 So. 2d 216, 217 (Fla.1998), the proceeding before us is an appeal because the circuit court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds. See Battle v. Fla. [*546] Comm’n on Offender Review, 188 So. 3d 10, 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. After extension of his PPRD, Nyberg petitioned the Leon County Circuit Court for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the Florida Commission on Offender Review’s stated reason for the ex…
-
Giles E. Orcutt v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…of certiorari) (citing Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1998)). However, our appellate jurisdiction is invoked when mandamus relief has been denied for reasons other than the merits. See Battle v. Fla. Comm'n on Offender Review, 188 So. 3d 10, 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). We treat this case as a direct appeal because the court below did not address the merits of the petition. We need not reach the merits of the appeal, however, because Polk County was not the proper venue to consider Mr. Orc…
-
Lucas v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…titioner received the records requested. See Roe v. Dep’t of Health, 312 So. 3d 175, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (dismissing mandamus petition as moot where petitioner already received requested records); see also Battle v. Fla. Comm’n on Offender Rev., 188 So. 3d 10, 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (noting that direct appeal is proper vehicle for review of mandamus petition denied for reasons other than merits, but affirming where petition was properly dismissed as moot); Moeller v. Se. Fla. Behav. Health Network, Inc.,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1998)
- Green v. Moore, 777 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Walker v. Ellis, 989 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)