Heard v. Florida Parole Commission, 1D01-2274.

Decision Date20 March 2002
Docket NumberNo. 1D01-2274.,1D01-2274.
Citation811 So.2d 808
PartiesWilliam K. HEARD, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Petitioner, pro se.

William L. Camper, General Counsel; Mark J. Hiers, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Parole Commission, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

William K. Heard challenges, in a petition for a writ of certiorari, an order of the circuit court upholding the revocation of his parole by the Florida Parole Commission. We conclude that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by 1) treating Heard's habeas corpus petition as a petition for a writ of mandamus and requiring him to pay a filing fee, and 2) exercising jurisdiction over Heard's habeas petition even though Heard is incarcerated in a county within a different judicial circuit.

An inmate's challenge to the revocation of his early release from prison under the terms and conditions of an early release program is properly filed in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, see Gillard v. Florida Parole Comm'n, 784 So.2d 1214, 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001),

and "a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ... is constitutionally exempt from all court costs and filing fees." Stanley v. Moore, 744 So.2d 1160, 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Thus, the circuit court clearly departed from the essential requirements of law in treating Heard's petition as a petition for a writ of mandamus and collecting a filing fee in connection with the petition.

An inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is properly filed in the circuit court having jurisdiction over the county in which the inmate is currently incarcerated. See Gillard 784 So.2d at 1215

. Thus, because Heard is, and was at the time he filed his petition, incarcerated in Hamilton County, jurisdiction over the petition was properly in the Third Judicial Circuit. In cases such as this where the circuit court has improperly exercised jurisdiction over a habeas corpus petition, the appropriate disposition is for the circuit court's order disposing of the inmate's petition without jurisdiction to be quashed and the case remanded with directions that the circuit court immediately transfer the inmate's petition to the circuit court having jurisdiction over the correctional facility in which the inmate is currently housed. See Stanley, 744 So.2d at 1161; see also Gillard, 784 So.2d at 1215; Yeik v. Florida Parole Comm'n, 776 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

W...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Suggs v. Fla. Parole Comm'n
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • December 2, 2014
    ...trial court and then an appeal from the order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Heard v. Florida Parole Comm'n, 811 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1 DCA 2002); Brown v. State, 738 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla. 5 DCA 1999)(holding that Florida appellate courts treat as petitions for writ of certio......
  • Cooper v. Florida Parole Commission, 4D05-2609.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 5, 2006
    ...habeas petition into a mandamus petition, see Knowles v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 846 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heard v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 811 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), the court properly denied the petition as untimely. § 95.11(5)(f), Fla. Stat. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal......
  • Richardson v. Florida Parole Com'n
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 23, 2006
    ...Comm'n, 485 So.2d 818, 820 (Fla.1986); Mabrey v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 858 So.2d 1176, 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Heard v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 811 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Sheley, 703 So.2d at 1205. As was noted in the Sheley decisions, see 720 So.2d at 217-18 and 703 So.2d at 1205-06, th......
  • Rich v. State, 1D08-5976.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 10, 2009
    ...in Hamilton County. A petition for habeas corpus should be filed in the circuit where the movant is located. See Heard v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 811 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Rich's petition should have been dismissed below because it was filed in a circuit which did not have jurisdiction......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT