Merritt v. Crosby
Decision Date | 05 January 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 1D04-2089.,1D04-2089. |
Citation | 893 So.2d 598 |
Parties | Paul W. MERRITT, Petitioner, v. James V. CROSBY, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, and Monica David, Chair, Florida Parole Commission, Respondents. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Paul W. Merritt, petitioner, pro se.
Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel, and Beverly Brewster, Assistant General Counsel, for respondent Department of Corrections, Tallahassee; Kim M. Fluharty, General Counsel, and Bradley R. Bischoff, Assistant General Counsel, for respondent Florida Parole Commission, Tallahassee.
Paul W. Merritt seeks certiorari review of an order of the circuit court denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In that petition, Merritt challenged an order of the Florida Parole Commission revoking his parole. We conclude that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by denying habeas corpus relief, and therefore quash its order.
After having remained at liberty on parole for more than eight years, Merritt was alleged to have violated the terms of his supervision by committing a battery upon his girlfriend, Jeanice Pauldon. At his parole revocation hearing, Merritt admitted that he and Pauldon had gotten into an argument, but testified that although she struck him a number of times, he did not hit her. A deputy sheriff testified that he was dispatched to Merritt's residence at 6:50 a.m. on the morning of the alleged incident, and arrived at that location 19 minutes later. According to the deputy, Pauldon told him that "Paul and she had been in an argument and that he had punched her and hit her several times." Pauldon had a raised welt to the forehead, a bloody nose, and a swollen lip, and she told the deputy that these injuries were a result of having been struck by her boyfriend Paul. Merritt was arrested on a charge of domestic battery, but that charge was ultimately dismissed due to Pauldon's unwillingness to testify. Pauldon likewise did not appear to testify at Merritt's parole revocation hearing.
At the conclusion of the revocation hearing, the hearing examiner found Merritt not guilty of the charged violation "based upon the lack of testimony and evidence to prove that the parolee [committed the alleged battery]." Despite this, the Parole Commission found Merritt guilty based upon the deputy's testimony and entered its order revoking parole. Merritt then sought habeas corpus relief in the circuit court, arguing among other things that the Parole Commission lacked the authority to reject the hearing examiner's finding of not guilty based solely on the deputy's hearsay testimony. Although the circuit court rejected this argument, we conclude that Merritt's claim in this regard was meritorious.
As we explained in Tedder v. Florida Parole Commission, 842 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), the Parole Commission is not at liberty to reweigh the evidence considered by the hearing examiner in order to find a violation where the examiner's finding to the contrary is supported by competent, substantial evidence. A necessary corollary of this rule is that the Parole Commission likewise may not find a violation where the hearing examiner's finding that there was insufficient evidence on which to make a finding of guilt is supported by the record. The Parole Commission argues that it did not violate the dictates of Tedder because the hearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Collins v. Hendrickson
...1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)4; see also, Mabrey v. Florida Parole Commission, 858 So.2d 1176, 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003): Merritt v. Crosby, 893 So.2d 598, (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)("As we explained in Tedder v. Florida Parole Commission, (citation omitted), the Parole Commission is not at liberty to re......
-
Suggs v. Fla. Parole Comm'n
...842 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1 DCA 2003). See also Mabrey v. Florida Parole Commission, 858 So.2d 1176, 1183 (Fla. 2 DCA 2003); Merritt v. Crosby, 893 So.2d 598, 599 (Fla. 1t DCA 2005)("As we explained in Tedder v. Florida Parole Commission, (citation omitted), the Parole Commission is not at liber......
-
Nelson v. Florida Parole Comm'n
...to support a revocation, but in his case, Deputy Sanchez's hearsay testimony was not corroborated (id. at 5-8 (citing Merritt v. Crosby, 893 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) and Arndt v. State, 815 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000))). 1. Record of Parole Revocation Proceedings The hearing examin......
-
G.T. v. Department of Children and Family Services
...be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay. Knight v. State, 801 So.2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).") (citation omitted); Merritt v. Crosby, 893 So.2d 598, 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) ("The sole evidence to support the Commission's finding of guilt consisted of the deputy's recitation of [appellant's......