Lowe v. Florida Parole and Probation Com'n, 82-860
| Decision Date | 30 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-860,82-860 |
| Citation | 416 So.2d 470 |
| Parties | Albert E. LOWE, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
This case was transferred to this court from the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County pursuant to the rationale of Daniels v. Florida Parole & Probation Comm'n, 401 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), holding that a determination by the Florida Parole & Probation Commission may be reviewed by the prisoner taking an administrative appeal to the appropriate district court of appeal. However, this court agreed with the rationale of Roberson v. Florida Parole & Probation Comm'n, 407 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) because of the express provision in the Florida Administrative Procedure Act stating that prisoners shall not be considered parties for the purposes of obtaining proceedings under the act. See, section 120.52(10)(d), Florida Statutes (1981). Therefore, the correct procedure for obtaining review of determinations by the Florida Parole & Probation Commission remains the filing of a petition for writ of mandamus or habeas corpus in the circuit court where incarcerated. See Wainwright v. Holley, 234 So.2d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Habeas would be the proper remedy if the prisoner contended that under his calculations his time had already expired. If it were contended that the commission's calculations were incorrect but that even under the prisoner's calculations he was not entitled to immediate release, mandamus would be the proper remedy.
Therefore, this petition for writ of mandamus is hereby transferred to the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County for consideration and determination.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valdez-Garcia v. State
...(1) to attack computations of gain time and other determinations of the parole and probation commission, see Lowe v. Fla. Parole & Probation Comm'n, 416 So.2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); (2) to test pretrial detention and the denial of pretrial bond or excessive pretrial bond, see State ex rel.......
-
Rothermel v. Florida Parole and Probation Com'n, AR-333
...1st DCA 1981); Harrison v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 428 So.2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Lowe v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 416 So.2d 470 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1982); Pannier v. Wainwright, 423 So.2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA Finally, we address the recent decision of the Florida ......
-
State v. Broom, 87-2366
...(1) to attack computations of gain time and other determinations of the parole and probation commission, see Lowe v. Fla. Parole & Probation Comm'n, 416 So.2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); (2) to test pretrial detention and the denial of pretrial bond or excessive pretrial bond, see State ex rel.......
-
Kirsch v. Greadington, AO-419
...---- (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) [1982 FLW 2523]; Taylor v. Wainwright, 418 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Lowe v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 416 So.2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Jenrette v. Wainwright, 410 So.2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Roberson v. Florida Parole and Probation Commissio......