From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Parole and Probation Com'n v. Fuller

Supreme Court of Florida
Jul 17, 1986
491 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1986)

Opinion

Nos. 66427, 66503.

July 17, 1986.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance, Fourth District — Case No. 83-2409, and Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Direct Conflict of Decisions; Fourth District — Case No. 83-2257.

Enoch J. Whitney, Gen. Counsel and Doris E. Jenkins, Asst. Gen. Counsel of Florida Parole and Probation Commission, Tallahassee, for petitioners.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for respondents.


These consolidated cases are before us on petitions to review Fuller v. Wainwright, 458 So.2d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), and Shannon v. Mitchell, 460 So.2d 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal determined it was appropriate for the prisoners Fuller and Shannon to challenge computation of their presumptive parole release dates by writs of habeas corpus. The district court certified, as being of great public importance, substantively identical questions, which we restate as follows:

Where a prisoner claims that improper calculation of his presumptive parole release date entitles him to immediate release, is his remedy properly pursued through petition for writ of mandamus or habeas corpus?

We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently answered this question in Griffith v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 485 So.2d 818 (Fla. 1986), explaining that in view of legislative action eliminating review under the Administrative Procedure Act, judicial review of a presumptive parole release date is available now only through the writ of mandamus.

During the course of this appeal, Shannon and Fuller have been released from prison on parole and, consequently, there is no need for further consideration by mandamus. Accordingly, the decisions of the district court of appeal are quashed with directions to deny the petitions for writ of habeas corpus.

It is so ordered.

McDONALD, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Parole and Probation Com'n v. Fuller

Supreme Court of Florida
Jul 17, 1986
491 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1986)
Case details for

Parole and Probation Com'n v. Fuller

Case Details

Full title:PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, PETITIONER, v. BRUCE FULLER, RESPONDENT…

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Jul 17, 1986

Citations

491 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1986)

Citing Cases

Tubb v. Florida Parole Commission

This appeal followed. The appropriate remedy for challenging presumptive parole release date is by writ of…

Porter v. Parole Probation Com'n

The Commission filed an answer brief along with a motion to supplement the record with the documents it used…