Adams v. State
| Decision Date | 23 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1876,89-1876 |
| Citation | 560 So.2d 321 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D1099 Eugene ADAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Eugene Adams, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Susan A. Maher, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Eugene Adams appeals the trial court's order denying his petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the Florida Parole Commission (Commission) and the Florida Department of Corrections (Department) to expunge allegedly false and inflammatory information from his records. We affirm.
In his mandamus petition, appellant alleged that the pre-sentence investigation report prepared in connection with his sentencing contained erroneous, inflammatory and slanderous information, which he had not been given an opportunity to impeach or confront. Appellant further alleged that the Commission and the Department had used the erroneous information contained in the report to determine his parole eligibility date, his custody status, and his housing and job assignments. By his petition, appellant sought to require the Department and the Commission to expunge the confidential portion of his pre-sentence investigation report from their files, and to require the Commission to reconsider his presumptive parole release date without reference to the confidential portion of the pre-sentence investigation report.
In their response to the order to show cause issued by the trial court, the Commission alleged that the confidential information contained in the pre-sentence investigation report was not utilized by the Commission in determining appellant's presumptive parole release date. The Commission further alleged that it is entitled to consider the confidential material which appears in the official records of the Department, together with the mitigating information provided by appellant, in connection with future parole reviews.
Entitlement to the extraordinary writ of mandamus requires the petitioner to demonstrate that he has a clear legal right to the performance of the particular action sought, the respondents have a clear legal duty of performance, and no other adequate remedy exists. Heath v. Becktell, 327 So.2d 3, 4 (Fla.1976); Holland v. Wainwright, 499 So.2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Hall v. Key, 476 So.2d 787, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). While the writ is available to compel performance of a duty imposed by law, it cannot be used to compel the exercise of discretionary authority in a given manner. Holland v. Wainwright, 499 So.2d at 22; Hall v. Key, 476 So.2d at 788.
In the parole review context, it is well settled that an inmate incarcerated for a parole eligible offense, has a clear legal right to proper consideration for parole, Moore v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 289 So.2d 719, 720 (Fla.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 935, 94 S.Ct. 2649, 41 L.Ed.2d 239 (1974), and that the Commission has a concomitant legal duty to establish an inmate's presumptive parole release date in accordance with objective parole guidelines. § 947.165, Fla.Stat. (1979); Florida Parole and Probation Commission v. Paige, 462 So.2d 817, 819-820 (Fla.1985). In the exercise of that duty, the Commission is entitled to rely on information contained in pre-sentence investigation reports, Jones v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 413 So.2d 861, 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), as well as on any other information compiled by the Department in performance of its record-keeping duty pursuant to section 945.25, Florida Statutes.
The record in this case reflects that the information which appellant seeks to have expunged from the Department records was not included in the Department file, until the material was provided by appellant, attached to his request for expunction. The sworn affidavit of Bobbie Glover, Admission and Release Administrator for the Department of Corrections, establishes that prior to September 3, 1987, the confidential portion of appellant's pre-sentence investigation report was not a part of appellant's official central office file. On...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Plymel v. Moore, 1D99-1250.
...State, 561 So.2d 562, 563 (Fla.1990); Holcomb v. Department of Corrections, 609 So.2d 751, 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Adams v. State, 560 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Mandamus may be used only to enforce a clear and certain right; it may not be used to establish such a right, but only ......
-
Austin v. Crosby
...right by compelling a person in an official capacity to perform an indisputably ministerial duty required by law. See Adams v. State, 560 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). It may only be granted if there is a clear legal obligation to perform a duty in a prescribed manner. See Milanick v.......
-
Milanick v. Town of Beverly Beach
...State, 561 So.2d 562, 563 (Fla.1990); Holcomb v. Department of Corrections, 609 So.2d 751, 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Adams v. State, 560 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Mandamus may be used only to enforce a clear and certain right; it may not be used to establish such a right, but only ......
-
Dugger v. Grant, 91-483
...of Mayo and Bishop. In Jones v. Florida Probation and Parole Comm'n, 413 So.2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), and Adams v. State, 560 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), this court allowed the Parole and Probation Commission to utilize information contained in the PSI in performing its duties. While w......