CopyCited 29 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19632
...l record [two of the former criteria].” The basic features of the prior scheme are carried forward under the new law; 9 most important for our purposes, the ultimate parole decision remains committed to the Commission’s discretion. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 947.1745 (1983 Supp.); May v....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 57, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 2879
...Prior to the arrival of this date, inmates are given a final interview and review in order to establish an effective release date after which the Commission must determine "whether or not to authorize the effective parole release date." §
947.174(6), Fla. Stat. (1981) (now §
947.1745, Fla....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 10537, 1993 WL 414240
...The Commission, at its meeting on 4-26-89, could find no further cause to modify your assigned date at this time. Your PPRD remains 7-16-90. By April 1990, as Williams was approaching within 90 days of his July 16, 1990, parole release date, the Commission, as required by section 947.1745, Florida Statutes (1989), [2] and Commission rule 23-21.015, Florida Administrative Code, scheduled the required final interview to establish an effective parole release date, i.e., to determine whether Williams would be released on July 16, 1990, in accordance with his PPRD. Pursuant to section 947.1745(4), [3] the Commission notified Judge Beverly by letter that *931 Williams was within 90 days of his effective parole release date, and advised that the judge had 30 days upon receipt of the notice to inform the Commission of any objection to Williams's release on parole....
...n parole and to suspend his PPRD. Williams filed a reply to the Department's response raising the additional, but new, argument that permitting Judge Beverly's opposition to his parole to serve as the basis for deferring his release date pursuant to section 947.1745(4) violates the constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy and ex post facto laws, because the judge had not retained jurisdiction over him under the law existing at the time he committed the offense and was sentenced....
...xtraordinary relief by mandamus." Williams now appeals this order. *934 III. CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL On this appeal, Williams essentially presents two points. First, he contends that allowing Judge Beverly to raise objections to his parole pursuant to section 947.1745(4) without having reserved jurisdiction to do so violates the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses of the federal and Florida constitutions....
...ioned convictions.
289 So.2d at 720 (emphasis added). B. DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND EX POST FACTO On appeal, both parties have focused considerable attention on Williams's constitutional arguments that allowing Judge Beverly to raise objections pursuant to section
947.1745(4), which had the legal effect of deferring his EPRD and preventing his release at PPRD even though she had declined to retain jurisdiction to review a commission release order under section
947.16(3), Florida Statutes (Supp....
...e onerous than the previous law, which did not grant judges such authority. E.g., Williams v. State,
414 So.2d 509; Prince v. State,
398 So.2d 976; Rodriguez v. State,
380 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Retrospective application of the provisions in section
947.1745(4) would permit the circuit *936 judge to object to parole release even though that judge had previously declined to reserve jurisdiction for this purpose in accordance with prior law....
...no longer binding on the Parole Commission. In another sense, it may be more onerous because the old statute contained strict requirements for retaining jurisdiction to prevent release from prison that the trial judge need not currently follow under section 947.1745(4) when the judge desires to influence the Commission's decision by objectioning to release....
...eptional circumstances." This provision is applicable to the decisional process leading to the suspension of an inmate's PPRD when the Commission denies an EPRD under section
947.18; this is made clear by the reference to section
947.173 found in subsection
947.1745(4). Section
947.1745(4) states that any objection by the sentencing court to an inmate's release on parole upon reaching his PPRD "may constitute good cause in exceptional circumstances as described in s....
...Finally, the Commission's letter to Judge Beverly regarding Williams's impending release on parole recites that copies of certain documents from his file were also transmitted for her consideration in deciding whether to make any objections to Williams's release. Under sections
947.173 and
947.1745(4) the judge's objection to release is "good cause in exceptional circumstances" that can warrant the Commission's decision to delay releasing Williams on parole....
...a later 1988 mental health status report in the inmate's file, or an even more current mental health report, is open to serious question. Providing a trial judge with incomplete or misleading information when soliciting a recommendation pursuant to section 947.1745(4) concerning an inmate's release on parole is obviously improper and clearly impeaches the reliability of that judge's recommendation as well as its legal efficacy to support the Commission's decision to deny parole release....
...s not in the best interest of the community or the inmate, the court may vacate the release order." The statute further provided that any court order vacating the release was not appealable. This statutory provision was superseded by the adoption of section 947.1745(4) in 1987....
...Within 30 days after receipt of the recommendation, the panel shall determine whether or not to authorize the effective parole release date; and the inmate shall be notified of such decision in writing within 30 days of the decision by the panel. [3] Section 947.1745(4), Florida Statutes (1989), provides in pertinent part: Within 90 days before the effective parole release interview date, the commission shall send written notice to the sentencing court of any inmate who has been scheduled for an effective parole release date interview....
...se shall this modified date be after the date established under the procedures of s.
947.172. It is the intent of this legislation that, once set, presumptive parole release dates be modified only for good cause in exceptional circumstances. [14] Subsection
947.1745(4) further provides that, "The provisions of this subsection shall be applicable in the event the commission desires to consider the establishment of an effective release date without delivery of the effective parole release date int...
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 582, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 1730, 2010 WL 4007636
...009), defines "[e]ffective parole release date" as " the actual parole release date as determined by the presumptive parole release date, satisfactory institutional conduct, and an acceptable parole plan." §
947.005(5), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Section
947.1745, Florida Statutes (2009), directs the Commission to establish the inmate's effective parole release date and provides in pertinent part that "[i]f the inmate's institutional conduct has been satisfactory, the presumptive parole relea...
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 244, 2016 WL 3010795, 2016 Fla. LEXIS 1124
...§
947.174, Fla. Stat. (2015). When the inmate’s presumptive parole release date nears and if the inmate’s institutional conduct and parole release plan are satisfactory, the presumptive parole release date becomes the effective parole release date. §
947.1745, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2534, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5091, 1988 WL 122622
...tortion notes demanding $200,000 under threat of a similar fate for members of the employer's family. The PPRD was several times reduced for exemplary behavior, and Dornau was finally placed on work release with a PPRD of April 14, 1987. Pursuant to section 947.1745(4), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.), the Commission sent a letter to the sentencing judge in January 1987, notifying him that Dornau was being considered for an effective parole release date and that the judge was entitled to object to parole release....
...re objecting to this parole release." *791 In March 1987, the Commission extended Dornau's PPRD by ninety-six months, based upon the sentencing judge's letter. Dornau requested review under section
947.173, asserting that the Commission had violated section
947.1745(4) because it did not make a finding that the judge's objection constituted "good cause in exceptional circumstances" justifying extension of the PPRD, that the judge's letter provided no explanation of his objection other than that other parties objected to the release, that section
947.1745(4) was unconstitutional per se and a violation of the constitutional provision against ex post facto laws, that all of the newest information supported Dornau's immediate release, and that the eight year extension was arbitrary and capricious. The Commission denied the request to modify the PPRD. Dornau then filed a petition in the circuit court for a writ of mandamus, requesting that the Commission be directed to establish his EPRD without regard to section
947.1745(4), or to immediately consider him for an EPRD "without regard to any judicial objection which does not constitute good cause in exceptional circumstances." He asserted that section
947.1745(4) is violative of due process, fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards (guidelines for determining whether a judge's objection constitutes good cause, and an upper limit upon the length of a PPRD extension), violates the con...
...We find no violation of chapter 947 in the Commission's actions. It properly considered the sentencing judge's objection, which the legislature has deemed important to the review of an inmate's PPRD, and extended Dornau's PPRD on the basis of this judicial objection, in accordance with sections
947.1745(4) and
947.165(1)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 12627, 2007 WL 2301308
...date [EPRD] for April 29, 2003. The following month, the Commission postponed the release because it had received "new information," namely that the State of Michigan had not completed its investigation of Armour's proposed parole release plan. See § 947.1745(5)(a), Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2714, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5553, 1988 WL 133955
...General Counsel, Florida Parole Com'n, Tallahassee, for appellee. WIGGINTON, Judge. Gattis appeals the trial court's "Order Denying Petition for Extraordinary Relief" wherein the court considered Gattis' petition for writ of habeas corpus and concluded that sections
947.165 and
947.1745(4), Florida Statutes (1987), are constitutional and that there was no basis or showing of entitlement to extraordinary relief....
...We affirm. Gattis' presumptive parole release date (PPRD) was established in August 1984 for August 22, 1987. No cause was found to modify that date at his biennial review in July 1986. Ninety days prior to the arrival of Gattis' PPRD, and pursuant to section 947.1745(4), the Commission sent written notice to the sentencing judge that it intended to consider authorizing Gattis' effective parole release date (EPRD) and that it would consider any judicial objections to parole release....
..., extended his PPRD twenty-four months for a new date of August 24, 1989. Thereafter, in December 1987, Gattis filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the Commission action extending his PPRD and arguing that sections
947.165(1) and
947.1745(4) violate the separation of powers provision of article II, section 3, of the Florida Constitution, as well as violate the constitutional provision against ex post facto laws. In 1986, the legislature, deeming important to the review of an inmate's PPRD the sentencing judge's objection thereto, [1] amended section
947.1745 to add subsection (4) providing that ......
...nding the presumptive parole release date beyond that time. In turn, section
947.165(1) was amended to include the provision that ... [i]n the event the sentencing court files a written objection to the parole release of an inmate as provided for in s.
947.1745(4), such objection may be used by the commission as a basis to extend the presumptive parole release date. Based on the foregoing, we find no violation of chapter 947 in the Commission's action. Neither do we hold that sections
947.165(1) and
947.1745(4) unconstitutionally invade the separation of powers clause of the Florida Constitution by, according to Gattis, returning jurisdiction to the sentencing court to approve or disprove a PPRD granted by the Parole Commission....
...2290,
53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977), wherein it was held that the new death penalty statute simply altered the methods employed in determining whether the death penalty was to be imposed. Similarly, in the instant case, the amended sections
947.165(1) and
947.1745(4) represent a mere procedural change in or enlargement of the manner by which the Commission may exercise its discretion....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12519, 1999 WL 743615
...In this petition for certiorari, prisoner Jerry Gaines seeks review of the circuit court's order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus against the Florida Parole Commission concerning his eligibility *119 for parole release. [1] While Gaines had alleged that application to his sentence of section 947.1745(6), Florida Statutes (1997), which requires notification to the sentencing judge of any proposed prisoner release under parole, was a violation of the ex post facto clause, the court disagreed and determined that the statute was not unconstitutional, relying on Gattis v....
...Several presumptive parole release dates ("PPRD") were set for Gaines, the changes to which are not germane to this appeal. Eventually, the Commission set a presumptive parole date of September 7, 1992. On October 1, 1986, the Florida Legislature amended section 947.1745(4), Florida Statutes, to require the Commission to notify and seek comments from the sentencing court when an inmate was within 90 days of his or her effective parole release date ["EPRD"] interview. The statute was further amended and codified as section 947.1745(6) and now requires the following: If the sentencing judge is no longer serving, the notice must be sent to the chief judge of the circuit in which the offender was sentenced....
...release, as Judge Morphonios had retired in 1991. Judge Rivkind objected to the release. Based on the comments of the judge, the Commission extended Gaines' PPRD to September 7, 1997. On May 12, 1997, Judge Alex Ferrer, who was appointed pursuant to section 947.1745(6), Florida Statutes (1997), by Chief Judge Rivkind to act in place of Judge Morphonios for the purposes of commenting on Gaines' release, responded to the Commission's inquiry and objected to his release on parole....
...n extended Gaines' PPRD to September 2002. Gaines sought and was denied administrative review of the Commission's decision. In July 1998, Gaines filed a petition for mandamus which is the subject of this certiorari proceeding. In it, he alleged that section 947.1745 was unconstitutionally applied to him....
...requirements of law or denied Gaines due process in dismissing his mandamus petition. See Sheley v. Florida Parole Comm'n,
720 So.2d 216 (Fla.1998). In Gattis,
535 So.2d at 641-42, the first district determined that application of the procedures of section
947.1745 to prisoners convicted prior to its enactment was not an ex post facto violation of the Florida Constitution....
...It observed that retrospective application of the section would permit the circuit judge to object to a parole release even though that judge had previously declined to retain jurisdiction over the sentence for that purpose under the prior law. See id. Upon our own analysis of the issue, we conclude that the application of section 947.1745(6) to a prisoner sentenced before its enactment does not constitute an ex post facto violation....
...sis and outcome." Id. at 837. Unlike Weaver, "May received all that was provided by law at the time of his offense-the reasonable, guided exercise of the commission's discretion." Id. at 838. In Gattis,
535 So.2d at 641, the first district held that section
947.1745(4) did not violate the ex post facto clause because both prior to and after the statute's enactment, the Parole Commission retained discretion in setting an inmate's parole date. The first district held that the requirement in section
947.1745(4) that the Parole Commission obtain input from the sentencing court was a "mere procedural change in or enlargement of the manner by which the Commission may exercise its discretion." Id....
...pend upon the commission's finding that the prisoner meets the conditions provided in section
947.18." May v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission,
435 So.2d at 837. Id. Applying the three-prong test identified in Paschal and Weaver, we find that section
947.1745(6), as applied to Gaines, is retroactive, and penal (i.e., criminal rather than civil), but not disadvantageous as that test is employed in the case law....
...pplied to Gaines, the Parole Commission ultimately retains the discretion to grant parole despite a judge's objection. Gaines has no guaranteed right to release at a certain time, based on a certain formula, unlike Weaver and Williams. Additionally, section 947.1745(6), like the death penalty statute at issue in Dobbert, is procedural rather than punitive, as it merely altered the methods employed to determine whether the inmate should be paroled. In conclusion, even though section 947.1745(6) may work to Gaines' disadvantage by placing a potential additional obstacle in his path to parole, the statute is procedural rather than punitive, because the judge's objection does not foreclose parole; the Parole Commission still retains the discretion to set an effective parole release date. See § 947.1745(6) (objection by judge " may constitute good cause in exceptional circumstances" to extend the presumptive parole release date) (emphasis added); Dobbert, 432 U.S....
...As noted in Gaines' petition, Judge Morphonios, in her letter to Gaines' daughter, stated that her position was to remain silent as to whether Gaines should be paroled. Under the statute, if the sentencing judge "remains silent with respect to parole release, the commission may authorize an [EPRD]." § 947.1745(6)(c)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13438, 2015 WL 5559801
...Spradley was scheduled for another parole release date interview in
February 2013. Before the scheduled date, the Commission informed the chief judge of
the Sixth Judicial Circuit (Pinellas County), where Mr. Spradley was sentenced, of this
status. See § 947.1745(6), Fla. Stat. (2012); Fla. Admin. Code R. 23-21.015(1) (2012).5
Responding to the Commission, the chief judge objected to Mr. Spradley's release. See
§ 947.1745(6); Fla....
...month of the inmate's initial interview. Subsequent
interviews will be scheduled every twenty-two (22) months,
unless otherwise specified by a panel of full Commission.
5
The pertinent wording of both section 947.1745(6) and rule
23-21.015(1) (2012) is as follows:
Within 90 days before the effective parole release date
interview, the commission shall send written notice to the
sentencing judge of any inmate w...
...chief judge of the circuit in which the offender was
sentenced. The chief judge can designate any circuit judge
within the circuit to act in place of the sentencing judge.
6
The pertinent wording of both section 947.1745(6) and rule 23-21.015(1)
(2012) is as follows: "Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the Commission's notice,
the sentencing judge[,] or the designee[,] shall send to the Commission notice of
objection to parole release, if the judge objects to such release."
7
23-21.015....
...nd
conduct himself or herself as a respectable and law-abiding
person and that the person's release will be compatible with
his or her own welfare and the welfare of society.
11
947.1745....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 14685, 2008 WL 4363093
...Morris seeks review of an order of the circuit court denying his petition for writ of mandamus, in which he challenged a Parole Commission action declining to authorize his effective parole release date and extending his presumptive parole release date based on a judicial objection to parole pursuant to section 947.1745(6), Florida Statutes....
...r is REMANDED with directions to conduct such further proceedings as are necessary to address and adjudicate petitioner's claim that the sentencing court's correspondence did not *432 constitute an "objection to parole release" within the meaning of section 947.1745(6)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 241, 1991 WL 3176
...which has already passed, Tubb is not absolutely entitled to immediate release. Rather, such release is permitted only if the Commission determines that Tubb is entitled to receive parole and that Tubb's institutional conduct has been satisfactory. § 947.1745, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1759386, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7981
...factors] 1 in its latest Commission action and the Commission did provide the record it considered in said action, these factors were actually the reasons for setting Petitioner’s parole interview within five years instead of two years pursuant to Section 947.1745(6), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1211, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14285
...umptive parole release date shall become the effective parole release date, if the inmate’s institutional conduct has been satisfactory, unless new information not available at the time of the effective parole release date interview is discovered. § 947.1745; see also Florida Parole and Probation Commission v....
...Paige,
462 So.2d 817 (Fla.1985). In this case, the opinion of the Attorney General did not become effective until after petitioner’s effective parole release date was approved by the commission on February 6, 1985. This is not a case of new information as contemplated by section
947.1745, but of a new interpretation of a statute or rule which could have no effect on the parole release date that had become binding on the commission pursuant to the provisions of chapter 947....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 WL 152368
June 2, 1988, release date, and pursuant to section
947.1745(4), Florida Statutes, the commission sent
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 397, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6376
...Paige, at 819; Kirsch v. Greadington,
425 So.2d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). First, an inmate receives a final interview and review to establish an EPRD, following which the Commission must determine whether to authorize the EPRD. § 947.-174(6), Fla.Stat. (1981) (now §
947.1745, *91 Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1165, 2006 WL 229552
...al proceedings where all parties are provided with an opportunity to present evidence and engage in cross-examination. See §
120.57(l)(b), Fla. Stat. However, a hearing examiner conducts an interview with the inmate merely to establish an EPRD. See §
947.1745(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4803, 2000 WL 484769
...Subsequently the Commission suspended the presumptive parole release date, the latest suspension coming in June of 1998. In 1999, defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court, contending that he is entitled to have an effective parole release date set. See § 947.1745, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2015 WL 1747589
...We find none have merit, but we
address one: whether the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the
law in finding that permitting the sentencing court to raise objections to petitioner
being released on parole, as provided by section 947.1745(6), Florida Statutes (2013),
did not violate the ex post facto clause.
Petitioner argues that permitting the sentencing court to raise objections to him
being released on parole pursuant to section 947.1745(6) violates the ex post facto
clause of the Florida and federal constitutions because subsection (6) was not in
existence at the time he was convicted.
Section 947.1745(6) provides that prior to an effective parole release date
interview, “the commission shall send written notice to the sentencing judge of any
inmate who has been scheduled for an effective parole release date interview” and
i...
...rgument in Gattis v. Florida Parole & Probation
Commission,
535 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In Gattis, this court held:
Equally without merit is Gattis’ ex post facto argument. . . .
. . . [T]he amended section[]
947.1745(4) [now codified at
947.1745(6)] represent[s] a mere procedural change in or enlargement of
the manner by which the Commission may exercise its discretion....
...e commission's finding that
the prisoner meets the conditions provided in section
947.18.” May v.
Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 435 So.2d at 837.
535 So. 2d at 641-42. See also Ch. 93-61 § 9, Laws of Fla. (renumbering subsection
947.1745(4) as subsection (6)).
3
Gattis predates Williams by 5 years....
...lacks colorable merit.” Williams,
625 So. 2d at 935. The Fourth District noted this discrepancy in Gaines,
743 So. 2d at
120, explaining:
In Gattis,
535 So. 2d at 641-42, the first district determined that
application of the procedures of section
947.1745 to prisoners convicted
prior to its enactment was not an ex post facto violation of the Florida
Constitution....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4328, 1993 WL 116739
...The trial court agreed with Snipes and directed the Commission to reconsider Snipes’ PPRD. We reverse. Snipes is currently serving sentences for attempted first-degree murder and aggravated assault. On February 13, 1991, the Commission notified Snipes’ sentencing court, pursuant to section 947.1745(4), 1 that *1178 he was being considered for an effective parole release date (EPRD), based upon his PPRD of May 7, 1991....
... PPRD to May 7, 1996, stating that it concurred with the opinion of the sentencing court. Snipes unsuccessfully sought administrative review and thereafter filed a petition for writ of mandamus, which the trial court granted, stating that although section 947.1745(4) authorizes the Commission to rely upon a general or nonspecific judicial objection as good cause to extend the PPRD, the Commission nevertheless abuses its discretion and violates an inmate's right to due process by relying upon a judicial objection that includes no explanation of the reasons for objecting....
...The court ordered the Commission to reconsider Snipes’ PPRD and “to require more than a general judicial objection if the objection is the sole basis for the extension or revocation of Petitioner’s PPRD.” We conclude that the judicial objection in this case provided a proper basis under section 947.1745(4) for the Commission to modify Snipes’ PPRD....
...MERELY REFERS TO THE RECORD BUT DOES NOT PROVIDE A SPECIFIC REASON FOR THE OBJECTION, WHERE THE RECORD CLEARLY CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT SUPPORTS AN EXTENSION OF THE INMATE’S PPRD, CONSTITUTE GOOD CAUSE IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 947.1745(4), FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), AUTHORIZING THE FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION TO MODIFY A PPRD? REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to the trial court to dismiss Snipes’ petition for writ of mandamus. BARFIELD and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. . Section 947.1745(4) provides, in part, as follows: Within 90 days before the effective parole release date interview, the commission shall send written notice to the sentencing court of any inmate who has been scheduled for an effective parole release date interview....
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41810, 2009 WL 1227002
...l circumstances." Fla. Stat. §
947.173(3). If an inmate's institutional conduct has been satisfactory, several factors may nevertheless constitute "new information and good cause in exceptional circumstances" to extend the inmate's PPRD. Fla. Stat. §
947.1745....
...nformation" as a basis for modifying the PPRD: Tooma's unsatisfactory parole release plan and an objection from the state judge. [2] If an inmate's parole release plan is unsatisfactory, the Commission may extend his PPRD by up to a year. Fla. Stat. § 947.1745(2)....
...of the Chief Judge of the appropriate Florida Circuit Court, if the sentencing judge is no longer serving), the Commission "may schedule a subsequent review within 2 years, extending the presumptive parole release date beyond that time." Fla. Stat. § 947.1745(6)....
...he offence nor in its punishment," there is no ex post facto violation. Id. at 381. In this case, Tooma's claim goes to a procedural change, not a material change that affects the offense or the punishment for his crime. Tooma claims that Fla. Stat. § 947.1745(6) (the judicial notification provision) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause....
...It is therefore recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [DE# 1] be denied. Objections to this report may be filed with the District Judge within ten days of receipt of a copy of the report. It is so recommended this 28th day of December, 2008. NOTES [1] The judicial comment statute, Fla. Stat. § 947.1745(6), requires that "the commission shall send written notice to the sentencing judge of any inmate who has been scheduled for an effective parole release date interview.......
...rocess protections during parole revocation proceedings. Gagnon v. Scarpelli,
411 U.S. 778, 781,
93 S.Ct. 1756,
36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973); Morrissey v. Brewer,
408 U.S. 471, 482, 489,
92 S.Ct. 2593,
33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). [2] In October 1986, Fla. Stat. §
947.1745(4) was amended to "require the Commission to notify and seek comments from the sentencing court when an inmate was within 90 days of his or her effective parole release date [`EPRD'] interview." Gaines v. Florida Parole Com'n,
743 So.2d 118, 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The statute was later amended and codified as Fla. Stat. §
947.1745(6)....
...Notice of the effective release date must be sent to the sentencing judge, and either the judge's response to the notice must be received or the time period allowed for such response must elapse before the commission may authorize an effective release date. Fla. Stat. § 947.1745(6) (amended 1997).
