Roach v. Mitchell, 84-594
| Decision Date | 03 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-594,84-594 |
| Citation | 456 So.2d 963 |
| Parties | Shawn ROACH, Appellant, v. Anabel MITCHELL and Florida Parole and Probation Commission, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John D. Middleton, Gainesville, for appellant.
Kurt E. Ahrendt, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Florida Parole and Probation Commission, Tallahassee, for appellee Florida Parole and Probation Commission.
This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which appellant, an inmate in the Florida Department of Corrections system, asserts that his parole had expired prior to its revocation.
In 1976 appellant was sentenced to a term of ten years imprisonment for robbery. Subsequently, he was notified by appellee, Florida Parole and Probation Commission, that he would be granted parole on July 24, 1979. On July 17, 1979, he signed a certificate of parole issued pursuant to section 947.19(1), Florida Statutes (1979), wherein he agreed to thirteen separate conditions of parole supervision as well as the dates of his term of supervision. Specifically, he acknowledged that he would "remain under supervision subject to the conditions of parole listed on the reverse side of this certificate until January 22nd, 1986, unless otherwise released, or until other action may be taken by the Florida Parole and Probation Commission," a period of six and one-half years.
Appellant's parole was revoked in March 1983 for conduct occurring in 1982. After incarceration in Polk County, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he contended that he was being illegally detained because his parole has expired in 1981. The court denied appellant's petition, and he appeals.
Appellant's argument is predicated upon section 947.24, Florida Statutes (1979), which reads:
947.24 Discharge from parole.--When a person is placed on parole, the commission shall determine the period of time the person shall be on parole, such time not to exceed a maximum period of 2 years unless the commission designates a longer period of time, in which case it will advise the parolee in writing of the reasons for the extended period. In any event, the period of parole shall not exceed the maximum period for which the person has been sentenced. The commission, after having retained jurisdiction of a person for a sufficient length of time to evidence satisfactory rehabilitation and cooperation, may discharge the person from parole, may relieve a person on parole from making further reports, or may permit such person to leave the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. Hendrickson
...until after the revocation of his Control Release to complain about his 1991 placement thereon. See Bowles, supra; Roach v. Mitchell, 456 So.2d 963 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Gallagher v. State, 421 So.2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Joyner v. State, 594 So.2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), approved, 618 So.......
-
Gillard v. State
...his September 30, 1999, arrest, Gillard was still on conditional release supervision at the time of the hearing. See Roach v. Mitchell, 456 So.2d 963 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (failure to follow statutory requirement of advising parolee in writing of reasons for extended supervision was not jurisd......
-
Whitfield v. State, 98-708
...Florida Parole Commission. No Appearance for Appellee State of Florida. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED on the authority of Roach v. Mitchell, 456 So.2d 963 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). DAUKSCH, HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., ...