Parole Commission

71 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Harvin v. State
  690 So. 2d 652· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-03-13 ·cited 3×
• United States v. Taylor
  768 F.2d 114· 6th Cir.· 1985-07-19 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by reducing a sentence under Rule 35(b) after an unreasonable delay, and that the judge's subjective intent or misunderstanding of the law did not warrant correction under Rule 35(a).
• Sawyer v. Fla. Parole Comm'n
  851 So. 2d 256· Fla. 1st DCA· 2003-07-31 ·cited 2×
  The circuit court erred in denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus because it did not apply the correct law in upholding the Parole Commission's revocation.
• Winchip v. Fla. Parole Comm'n
  691 So. 2d 44· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-04-09 ·cited 2×
  The court reversed the trial court's dismissal of a mandamus petition, holding that an inmate stated a sufficient claim by alleging the Parole Commission failed to identify specific information in his official record supporting its decision to suspend his parole release date.
• United States v. Anderson
  970 F.2d 602· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the six-year supervised release term was legal, but remanded the case to determine if the government breached the plea agreement.
• McWILLIAMS v. State
  556 So. 2d 821· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-02-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the records attached to the order denying post-conviction relief did not conclusively show the appellant was entitled to no relief.
• Ricky Darvin Martin (80-1273) v. Attorney General OF the United States
  771 F.2d 102· 6th Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the use of set-aside convictions due to lack of standing, upheld the use of age in calculating salient factor scores, but reversed the district court's approval of a remedial plan for YCA offenders, finding it insufficient.
• Meagher v. Dugger
  737 F. Supp. 641· S.D. Fla.· 1990-05-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that it is powerless to grant relief by crediting time served in state custody towards a federal sentence when the state confinement was the result of state charges and conviction, and the federal parole commission has discretion over concurrent sentencing.
• Boone v. Fla. Comm'n on Offender Review
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-28
  The court denied the habeas petition, finding that the petitioner's claims were either procedurally defaulted or failed to demonstrate a violation of federal law or the Constitution.
• Napier v. Fla. Parole Comm'n & Dep't of Corr.
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-04-01
  The conditional release statute does not violate double jeopardy, due process, or ex post facto protections, and inmates have no entitlement to credit for time spent on conditional release.
• Velez v. State
  23 So. 3d 808· Fla. 2d DCA· 2009-12-02
  The court affirmed the denial of Velez's postconviction motion, holding that the Florida Parole Commission had discretionary authority under section 947.1405(6) to impose special conditions on his conditional release supervision for a 1990 offense.
• Welsch v. State
  823 So. 2d 310· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-08-14
  Charles Welsch appealed the circuit court's denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging the Florida Parole Commission's suspension of his presumptive parole release date (PPRD). The appellate court converted the appeal to a certiorari petition and granted relief, finding tha
• Sanders v. State
  756 So. 2d 236· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-04-26
  Charles Sanders, convicted in 1972 of capital rape and sentenced to life imprisonment, petitioned for a writ of mandamus (treated as certiorari) seeking an effective parole release date. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the Parole Commission's discretion to suspend h
• Noble Lee Simpson v. Ortiz
  995 F.2d 606· 5th Cir.· 1993-07-16
  The court held that the Parole Commission's application of its 1990 guidelines did not violate the ex post facto clause and that the Commission did not violate the separation of powers doctrine by establishing parole suitability guidelines.
• United States v. Moss
  972 F.2d 273· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-05
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review a district court's discretionary refusal to depart downward from a sentence, even when the defendant is serving a pre-Guidelines sentence.
• United States v. Lovaglia
  954 F.2d 811· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-22
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to recuse himself, as his past relationships with alleged victims were remote and not outcome-determinative, and that the government did not breach the plea agreement by including relevant information
• Istvan Kele v. Carlson
  877 F.2d 775· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-08
  The court held that while the Parole Commission's discretion is broad, it is bound by its own regulations, allowing review for violations of those regulations.
• Notaro v. Luther
  800 F.2d 290· 2d Cir.· 1986-04-15
  The court held that the Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion in applying an unpublished training aid and that the submission of the presentence report was proper.
• United States v. Knight
  638 F.2d 46· 8th Cir.· 1981-01-14
  A motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not the proper vehicle to challenge the execution of a sentence; such challenges must be brought via a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
• State v. Camp
  6 Fla. Supp. 107· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1954-10-01
  Neither the trial court nor the appellate court has the authority to suspend a sentence or mitigate punishment after the trial court's term has ended and the sentence has been imposed and affirmed.