Oliver v. Fla. Comm'n on Offender Review

• Docket Number: 1D22-279
• Decision Date: 07 June 2023
• Parties: Edgar E. Oliver, Petitioner, v. Florida Commission on Offender Review, Respondent.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

1

Edgar E. Oliver, Petitioner, v. Florida Commission on Offender Review, Respondent.

No. 1D22-279

Florida Court of Appeals, First District

June 7, 2023

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari-Original Jurisdiction.

Edgar E. Oliver, pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

The Court denies the petition for writ of certiorari on the merits.

ROBERTS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur; TANENBAUM, J., concurs in result with opinion.

2

TANENBAUM, J., concurring in result.

This court incorrectly has recharacterized Oliver's prisoner appeal as a certiorari petition, even though the trial court did not render the appealed order in its review capacity. Oliver filed a mandamus complaint challenging the commission's suspension of his presumptive parole release date ("PPRD"). Cf. §§ 947.16(5), 947.172, 947.173(3), 947.1745, 947.18, Fla. Stat. That action did not come about as part of a quasi-judicial proceeding, so "the trial court could not have entertained the present mandamus complaint in a review capacity." Estremera v. Fla. Comm'n on Offender Rev., 48 Fla.L.Weekly D434 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 22, 2023) (Tanenbaum, J., concurring) (citing Fla. Dep't of Corr. v. Gould, 344 So.3d 496, 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), rev. granted, SC22-1207, 2022 WL 17347630 (Fla. Dec. 1, 2022)).

Indeed, the trial court, in denying the appellant's request for relief, noted that there was no liberty interest at stake in connection with the PPRD. It, in turn, treated the complaint as a typical mandamus pleading that sought to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty to which the appellant claimed a clear legal right. The commission's decision regarding the PPRD was discretionary, of course, so the trial court correctly concluded that the appellant failed to plead a facial basis for mandamus. The complaint should have been dismissed (instead of "denied"). At all events, though, our review here should be by appeal, not certiorari, and we should affirm the trial court's final order. I concur in the disposition anyway-simply because, either way, we effectively deny the appellant any relief, which is the legally correct outcome.