Case ID: so2d_913/html/0741-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Osvaldo PALAZON, Petitioner, v. James V. CROSBY, Jr., Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, and the Florida Parole Commission, Respondents.
    No. 4D05-2114.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Nov. 2, 2005.
    Osvaldo Palazon, Okeechobee, pro se.
    Beverly Brewster, Tallahassee, for respondent James V. Crosby, Jr.
    Terri Leon-Benner, Tallahassee, for respondent Florida Parole Commission.
   PER CURIAM.

We treat this case as a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of an order from the circuit court denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

In 2004, the Florida Parole Commission issued an order revoking petitioner’s conditional release. Petitioner did not receive a final hearing because an attorney, who represented him on a misdemeanor traffic charge and at the initial interview before the Parole Commission, faxed a letter to the Parole Commission stating that petitioner waives a hearing regarding the violation. Petitioner maintains that he did not waive his right to a hearing or authorize anyone to waive the right on his behalf.

Section 947.141(3), Florida Statutes (2004), provides that if a releasee is charged with violating conditional release, the releasee must be afforded a hearing within 45 days after notice to the Parole Commission of the releasee’s arrest. Florida Administrative Code Rule 23-23.011(4)(c) states that a conditional release violation hearing “may be waived by the conditional releasee after an explanation of the consequences of a waiver. The waiver shall be in writing and shall be executed before a Commissioner or duly authorized representative of the Commission.”

In State v. Upton, 658 So.2d 86 (Fla.1995), the supreme court held that a lawyer’s written waiver is insufficient to waive a defendant’s right to a jury trial. The court was concerned that the waiver of such an important right be knowing and voluntary. See id. at 87-88. Rule 23-23.011(4)(e) embodies similar concerns about the waiver of a conditional release violation hearing; the rule requires that the consequences of the waiver be explained to the releasee. The purpose of the requirement that the waiver occur before a commissioner or representative is to ensure that the waiver is knowing and voluntary. We therefore read the administrative rule to require the releasee’s signature on a waiver; the attorney’s signature alone is insufficient.

We grant the writ, quash the order of the circuit court, and remand to the Parole Commission to conduct a final hearing on violation of conditional release. .

WARNER, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.