Jackson v. Mayo
| Decision Date | 20 July 1954 |
| Citation | 73 So.2d 881 |
| Parties | JACKSON v. MAYO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John R. Parkhill, Tampa, for petitioner.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
On January 25, 1935, petitioner was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment for second-degree murder. March 16, 1942, petitioner was released from prison on parole under the supervision of the Florida Parole Commission. March 9, 1954, the Parole Commission issued to petitioner a notice in which it was charged that petitioner violated conditions of his parole which required that petitioner 'avoid injurious habits and shall not associate with persons of harmful character or bad reputation' and which required him to make a full and truthful report to his parole supervisor with reference to matters of income for the month of January, 1954. On March 17, 1954 [the date of the hearing set in the notice] the parole was revoked by the Florida Parole Commission and the petitioner taken into custody and returned to the state prison.
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court setting out the above facts and alleging further that he was unlawfully detained because his parole had been wrongfully revoked because the hearing before the Commission on March 17, 1954, did not meet the requirements of Section 947.23, F.S.1951 F.S.A. In this connection, he alleged that, at the aforesaid hearing at which he appeared pursuant to notice, no evidence was adduced to prove that petitioner had violated any terms of his parole. Petitioner himself denied that he was guilty of any parole violation, but nevertheless the Commission revoked the parole thereby requiring petitioner to return to prison to serve thirteen years. Attached to this petition was a transcript of the proceedings at the alleged hearing. Upon consideration of this petition, we issued a writ of habeas corpus to which respondent filed a return. Petitioner has not filed a reply to the return but we treat the original petition as a traverse thereto. Snead v. Mayo, Fla., 1953, 66 So.2d 865.
Respondent, in the return, concedes that the transcript is a substantially correct record of the proceedings before the Commission but denies that there was no basis for revocation of the parole. Respondent attached to the return an exhibit, purporting to be a copy of a report made to the Commission by one of its assistants, and asserted that this report 'was a part of the Parole Commission's files and records at the time of said parole violation hearing and said Commission took notice of said report as evidence in arriving at its determination that the petitioner had violated the terms of his parole.'
We must determine from the record before us whether the parole of petitioner was lawfully revoked. Section 947.22 provides that if any member of the Commission or any parole supervisor has 'reasonable ground' to believe that a parolee has violated the terms of his parole in a 'material respect,' the parolee under outlined procedure shall be brought before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Wainwright
...from the public meetings law. The petitions for habeas corpus and the administrative appeal appropriately raise the issues. Jackson v. Mayo, 73 So.2d 881 (Fla.1954); State v. Sampson, 297 So.2d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Sections 120.565, 120.68, Florida Statutes Turner's case is typical of B......
-
Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Palumbo
...by both sides, and on the law applicable thereto.' In a parole revocation case the Florida Supreme Court in the case of Jackson v. Mayo, Fla., 73 So. 2d 881, adopted this definition. Among cases which have reflected the view that a necessary ingredient of a fair hearing is the right to be r......
-
Hickey v. Wells
...accusation, it does not require both. Under the circumstances of the present case, a specific accusation is necessary. Cf. Jackson v. Mayo, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 881, 882. At this point it is not relevant to discuss the actual proof because the requirement is for a fair chance to prepare a def......
-
State ex rel. Roberts v. Cochran, 31249
...improperly entered. We have held that the validity of an order revoking probation may be tested in a habeas corpus proceeding. Jackson v. Mayo (Fla.) 73 So.2d 881; Senk v. Cochran (Fla.) 116 So.2d We must now determine whether a valid conviction is a condition precedent to the revocation of......