Johnson v. Florida Parole and Probation Com'n

Decision Date31 May 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-1164,88-1164
Citation14 Fla. L. Weekly 1322,543 So.2d 875
Parties14 Fla. L. Weekly 1322 William JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, Respondent.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

William Johnson, Belle Glade, pro se petitioner.

Lynne T. Winston, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This petition for writ of mandamus was filed to challenge the Florida Parole and Probation Commission's suspension of petitioner's presumptive parole release date. We dismiss the petition without prejudice to the petitioner to file for relief in the circuit court.

The Florida Supreme Court addressed the history of review of the Florida Parole and Probation Commission's actions in Griffith v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 485 So.2d 818 (Fla.1986). Before 1981, presumptive parole release dates were reviewed by petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to Moore v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 289 So.2d 719 (Fla.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 935, 94 S.Ct. 2649, 41 L.Ed.2d 239 (1974). With the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, the legislature in 120.68 provided for appeals of final administrative action to the district courts. Section 120.52(10)(d), Florida Statutes (1981) exempted prisoners as parties for purposes of obtaining rule making administrative hearings section 120.54(16) or "substantial interest" administrative hearings section 120.57. In Roberson v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 444 So.2d 917 (Fla.1983), the act was interpreted as not precluding prisoners from seeking judicial review of final Florida Parole and Probation Commission action, pursuant to 120.68.

In 1983, the legislature amended section 120.52(10) to read: "Prisoners shall not be considered parties in any other proceedings and may not seek judicial review under s. 120.68 of any other agency action." Ch. 83-78, § 1, Laws of Fla. With this amendment, district courts were deprived of jurisdiction to consider an appeal of a PPRD. Jurisdiction in the district courts then, is only available through common law writs of mandamus for review of PPRDs. Griffith, 485 So.2d at 820. See also Wainwright v. Taylor, 476 So.2d 669 (Fla.1985); Hall v. Wainwright, 498 So.2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Thomas v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 436 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Hansen v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 436 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

Therefore, review of PPRDs set by the Florida Parole and Probation Commission are proper via the extraordinary writ of mandamus. Griffith v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission. See also Florida Parole and Probation Commission v. Dornau, 534 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). However, since the circuit courts have concurrent extraordinary writs jurisdiction with the district courts, we have concluded that the circuit court is the proper forum in which to file a petition for writ of mandamus to seek review of a PPRD. See London v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 471 So.2d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In doing so we rely upon the reasoning of the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250 (Fla.1988) that an extraordinary writ may not provide jurisdiction to the district court in a matter over which it has no jurisdiction by way of direct appeal. In the Pettis case, the extraordinary writ of certiorari was in issue. However we believe that the same reasoning applies to the extraordinary writ of mandamus. In Pettis, the Florida Supreme Court agreed with the Second District Court of Appeal in State v. Wilson...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Williams v. Florida Parole Com'n
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 15, 1993
    ...district court of appeal. Griffith v. Florida Parole and Probation Comm'n, 485 So.2d 818 (Fla.1986); Johnson v. Florida Parole and Probation Comm'n, 543 So.2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Zatler v. State, 457 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). With the statutory amendments to chapter 120 in 1981 e......
  • Sheley v. Florida Parole Com'n
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 31, 1997
    ...of mandamus seeking review of a Parole Commission order should be directed to the circuit court. See Johnson v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 543 So.2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); see also Jones v. Department of Corrections, 615 So.2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Under the current pract......
  • Spradley v. Parole Comm'n
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 9, 2015
    ...719, 720 (Fla.1974), superseded by section 120.52(10), Fla. Stat. (1983), on other grounds as stated in Johnson v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 543 So.2d 875, 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Moore did not involve a sword-wielder-doctrine home-venue challenge, but its holding supports Mr. Spradley's......
  • Johnson v. FLORIDA PAROLE COM'N, 1D02-2047.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 3, 2003
    ...parolees must seek their remedy in circuit court by way of a petition for an extraordinary writ. See Johnson v. Florida Parole and Probation Comm'n, 543 So.2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), disapproved on other grounds, Sheley v. Florida Parole Comm'n, 720 So.2d 216 (Fla.1998); Thomas v. Florida ......
  • 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