RONNIE K. WILLIAMS
v.
FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW
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.
A parole commission may not aggravate a sentence for a factor that is already included in the definition of another conviction used as an aggravating element.
[1] A parole commission may not aggravate a presumptive parole release date for a factor that is included within the definition of an offense already used as an aggravating e…
[2] A parole commission's rules do not permit additional aggravation for factors that are part of the definition of other convictions already used as aggravating elements.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 was convicted of first-degree murder and three other counts, including shooting into an occupied vehicle and related firearm charges. The C…
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 Included Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
December 18, 2018 PER CURIAM.
The appendix reveals Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder, which was used as the present offense of conviction, and three other counts. The Commission aggravated Petitioner’s presumptive parole release date for his separate conviction of shooting into occupied vehicle and for use of a firearm. However, use of a firearm is included in the definition of the offense of shooting into occupied vehicle, and the Commission’s rules do not permit additional aggravation for factors included in the definition of other convictions already used as aggravating elements. Mattingly v. Fla. Parole and Probation Comm’n, 417 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The order denying Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus is quashed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. LEWIS, WETHERELL, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mattingly v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 417 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)