Case ID: so2d_425/html/1190-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. ERVIN, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rebecca WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, Appellee.
    No. AK-82.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Jan. 27, 1983.
    
      Ronald D. Combs, Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc., Gainesville, for appellant.
    Malcolm S. Greenfield, Florida Parole and Probation Com’n, Tallahassee, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Williams complains of Parole and Probation Commission action setting her presumptive parole release date based on parole guidelines adopted subsequent to the date of her offense. We again approve the procedure applied as not being violative of the proscription against ex post facto laws and affirm the commission’s order. See Overfield v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 418 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and May v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 424 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED.

MILLS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.

ERVIN, Judge,

dissenting.

I agree with appellant’s argument that the Commission’s reliance upon amended guidelines, effective after the date of the offense, in establishing a presumptive parole release date, violates the ex post facto clause of both the state and federal constitutions. In so doing, I adopt the views stated by Judge Shivers’ dissenting opinion in May v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 424 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1982). At the very minimum I would certify the same question certified by the majority in May as one of great public importance.