Case Title: Florida Parole Commission v. Robert Taylor (with)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2014-01-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
_____________ 
 
No. SC11-2460 
_____________ 
 
 
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
ROBERT TAYLOR, 
Respondent. 
 
[January 23, 2014] 
CORRECTED OPINION 
 
 
CANADY, J. 
 
The Florida Parole Commission seeks review of Taylor v. Florida Parole 
Commission, 75 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), in which the First District Court 
of Appeal granted a petition for second-tier certiorari and quashed an order by the 
Third Judicial Circuit Court.  Because the First District granted certiorari relief 
based on a de novo review of the administrative decision of the Florida Parole 
Commission (FPC) rather than conducting a limited certiorari review of the circuit 
court’s order, the First District’s decision expressly and directly conflicts with 
Sheley v. Florida Parole Commission, 720 So. 2d 216, 218 (Fla. 1998), in which 
 
 
- 2 - 
this Court held that “once an inmate has had a full review on the merits of a Parole 
Commission order in the circuit court, he or she is not entitled to a second plenary 
appeal of the order in the district court.”  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 
3(b)(3), Fla. Const. 
 
In addition to concluding that the First District’s decision exceeded the 
scope of second-tier certiorari review, we hold that the First District erred in 
granting certiorari relief because the circuit court’s decision did not result in a 
miscarriage of justice.  We therefore quash the First District’s decision. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
In 1989, Robert Taylor was sentenced as a habitual offender for burglary 
with assault and false imprisonment.  He was granted conditional release in 2007.  
In 2008, Taylor violated his conditional release by failing to maintain full-time 
employment.  At that time, the FPC determined that Taylor’s conditional release 
should not be revoked. 
In 2010, Taylor admitted that he again violated a condition of his release by 
using marijuana.  After a hearing, during which a conditional release officer and 
Taylor testified, the parole examiner concluded that Taylor’s violation was willful 
and substantial but recommended that Taylor be restored to regular supervision.  
The FPC rejected this recommendation and revoked Taylor’s conditional release.  
In its order, the FPC concluded that Taylor willfully violated a substantial 
 
 
- 3 - 
condition of his conditional release by “using or possessing narcotics, drugs or 
marijuana, unless prescribed by a physician, in that on or about April 5, 2010, he 
did use and/or possess marijuana, not prescribed by a physician, as evidenced by 
his own admission.”  Appellant’s Brief on the Merits at Exhibit 1:94, Fla. Parole 
Comm’n v. Taylor, No. SC11-2460 (Apr. 2, 2013) (Revocation of Conditional 
Release Order).  The FPC then explained that the FPC “deems it for the best 
interests of society and the Conditional Releasee, that Robert L. Taylor be returned 
to the custody of the Department of Corrections, there to remain not to exceed 
his/her sentence or until further order of the Commission.”  Id. 
Taylor filed in the circuit court a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  
He argued in part that the FPC abused its discretion by revoking Taylor’s 
conditional release without “stating with particularity”—as required by section 
120.57(1)(l), Florida Statutes (2010)—its reason for departing from the parole 
examiner’s recommendation.  After ordering a response from the FPC, the circuit 
court denied Taylor’s habeas petition.  Without expressly addressing Taylor’s 
argument that the FPC failed to state its reasoning with sufficient particularity, the 
circuit court concluded that Taylor was not entitled to relief from the FPC’s 
decision because the parole examiner’s finding of a willful violation was supported 
by competent, substantial evidence and the FPC acted within its discretion in 
 
 
- 4 - 
revoking Taylor’s conditional release.  See Taylor v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, No. 
2010-588-CA at 2 (Fla. 3d Jud. Cir. Mar. 17, 2011). 
Taylor then filed in the First District a pro se petition for a writ of certiorari.  
Taylor argued that the FPC failed to follow Florida’s Administrative Procedures 
Act, ch. 120, Fla. Stat. (2010), when it rejected the parole examiner’s 
recommendation.  After ordering a response from the FPC, the First District 
granted Taylor’s petition.  The First District concluded that “under the facts of this 
case as determined by the parole examiner, the Commission abused its discretion 
in revoking Petitioner’s supervision, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.”  Taylor, 
75 So. 3d at 308. 
The FPC petitioned this Court for review of the First District’s decision on 
the basis that the decision expressly and directly conflicts with Sheley.  This Court 
granted review and appointed counsel for Taylor. 
II.  ANALYSIS 
In the analysis that follows, we first address the conflict between the First 
District’s decision and Sheley.  We then explain why the First District erred in 
granting second-tier certiorari relief in Taylor’s case. 
“[T]he district court’s role on second-tier certiorari review [is] limited to a 
two-pronged review of the circuit court decision, not a de novo review of the 
agency decision.”  Broward Cnty. v. G.B.V. Int’l, Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838, 845 (Fla. 
 
 
- 5 - 
2001) (citing generally City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 
1982)).  The district court is to determine only whether the circuit court: (1) 
afforded procedural due process; and (2) applied the correct law.  Id. at 843. 
Furthermore, certiorari review “cannot be used simply because the district 
court disagrees with the outcome of the circuit court’s decision. . . .  [D]istrict 
courts should act only where the error is one that is a departure from the essential 
requirements of law.”  Nader v. Fla. Dep’t of High. Saf. & Motor Veh., 87 So. 3d 
712, 726 (Fla. 2012).  “The test that has always applied to second-tier certiorari 
[is]: it should be granted only when there is a departure from the essential 
requirements of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.”  Id. (emphasis added). 
 
In Sheley, this Court applied these principles of second-tier certiorari in the 
context of reviewing a decision by the FPC.  In that case, an inmate filed a petition 
for a writ of mandamus challenging the FPC’s decision regarding his presumptive 
parole release date.  After the circuit court denied his mandamus petition, the 
inmate attempted to appeal the circuit court’s order.  The First District treated the 
appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari and denied relief, reasoning that “[t]here 
has been no showing that the circuit court failed to afford the inmate due process of 
law or that the court departed from the essential requirements of the law.”  Sheley 
v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 703 So. 2d 1202, 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).  The First 
District further concluded that the circuit court “properly fulfilled its appellate 
 
 
- 6 - 
function in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Commission’s 
administrative decision.”  Id.  Sheley then sought review in this Court based on 
conflict with Johnson v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 543 So. 2d 875 
(Fla. 4th DCA 1989), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that an 
inmate could appeal a circuit court’s denial of a mandamus petition challenging a 
decision by the FPC. 
After explaining that Sheley “cite[d] no statute or rule that would provide 
authority for a second plenary appeal of a Parole Commission order in the district 
court, nor d[id] he advance any sound policy reason for formulating such a 
practice,” Sheley, 720 So. 2d at 217, this Court approved the First District’s 
decision and disapproved Johnson.  Id. at 218.  This Court held that “once an 
inmate has had a full review on the merits of a Parole Commission order in the 
circuit court, he or she is not entitled to a second plenary appeal of the order in the 
district court.”  Id.  This Court also agreed with the First District’s conclusion that 
Sheley had “been afforded extensive judicial review of his claim and ha[d] been 
deprived of no rights.”  Id. 
In the instant case, the First District’s opinion indicates that the district court 
did not limit its review to the legal issues of whether the circuit court provided due 
process and applied the correct law when ruling on Taylor’s habeas petition.  
While the First District purported not to “direct the lower tribunal to enter any 
 
 
- 7 - 
particular order,” the First District reached its decision by reviewing the merits of 
the FPC’s decision to revoke Taylor’s conditional release.  Taylor, 75 So. 3d at 
308.  The First District granted Taylor’s petition for a writ of certiorari based on 
the conclusion that “under the facts of this case as determined by the parole 
examiner, the Commission abused its discretion in revoking Petitioner’s 
supervision, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.”  Id. 
We resolve the current conflict by adhering to our decision in Sheley 
regarding the scope of a district court’s second-tier certiorari review of a circuit 
court’s order.  We again conclude that second-tier certiorari relief should be 
granted only where the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of 
law and that departure resulted in a miscarriage of justice.  A petitioner who has 
had appellate review of a decision by the FPC in the circuit court is not entitled to a 
second plenary appeal in the district court.  Accordingly, the First District erred by 
reviewing the decision of the FPC to revoke Taylor’s conditional release, rather 
than confining its review to the propriety of the circuit court’s order. 
In addition to exceeding the scope of second-tier certiorari review, the First 
District also erred by concluding that there had been a miscarriage of justice in 
Taylor’s case.  Second-tier certiorari is available only “to correct grievous errors 
that, for a variety of reasons, are not otherwise effectively subject to review.”  
Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086, 1092 (Fla. 2010) 
 
 
- 8 - 
(quoting Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 n.14 (Fla. 1995)).  
In its order, the circuit court did not address Taylor’s argument that the FPC failed 
to state with particularity its reason for rejecting the parole examiner’s 
recommended sanction.  But even if the FPC’s statement of its reasoning was 
insufficient, such a defect in the FPC’s order is not a grievous error that constitutes 
a miscarriage of justice. 
The Florida Statutes provide that once a willful violation is proven, the FPC 
has discretion to reject a parole examiner’s recommended sanction.  Section 
947.141(4), Florida Statutes (2010), conditions the FPC’s authority to reject a 
parole examiner’s finding of fact or conclusion of law but grants the FPC 
discretion to “revoke conditional release, control release, conditional medical 
release, or addiction-recovery supervision and thereby return the releasee to prison 
to serve the sentence imposed, reinstate the original order granting the release, or 
enter such other order as it considers proper.”  Similarly, section 120.57(1)(l) 
provides that so long as the administrative agency reviews the complete record and 
“stat[es] with particularity its reasons,” the agency may “reduce or increase” the 
penalty recommended by the hearing officer. 
Florida case law likewise recognizes that the FPC has broad discretion to 
revoke conditional release.  The First District has explained that a “willful 
violation of a substantial condition of parole or probation will justify revocation of 
 
 
- 9 - 
parole or probation,” Mathis v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 944 So. 2d 1182, 1183 (Fla. 
1st DCA 2006), and distinguished the deference due to a parole examiner’s finding 
of fact from the FPC’s discretion regarding a parole examiner’s “non-binding” 
recommendation to restore conditional release.  Lopez v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 943 
So. 2d 199, 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also Smith v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 971 
So. 2d 1028, 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“Petitioner asserts that the Parole 
Commission was bound by the hearing examiner’s recommendation that he be 
reinstated to parole.  This argument has been rejected by this court . . . .”); Miller v. 
Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 8:07-CV-400-T-23EAJ, 2010 WL 2366935 at *3 (M.D. Fla. 
June 11, 2010) (“A hearing officer’s finding of fact binds the parole commission, 
but a hearing officer’s recommendation regarding revocation is not a binding fact.”  
(internal citation omitted)). 
Because the FPC’s determination whether to revoke a conditional release is 
inherently discretionary, once a substantial, willful violation is established, the 
circuit court may not require the FPC to impose a particular sanction.  “Th[e] court 
cannot substitute its judgment for that of an administrative agency, charged with 
implementing and enforcing its own statute, when that agency has imposed a 
penalty within the permissible range of penalties.”  Fernandez v. Dep’t of Health, 
120 So. 3d 117, 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Mendez v. Fla. Dep’t of Health, 
943 So. 2d 909, 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)).  Rather, under section 120.57(1)(l), if 
 
 
- 10 - 
an agency fails to set out the reasoning for its decision with sufficient particularity, 
the remedy is to quash and remand the case so that the agency has an opportunity 
to add the required statement of reasoning to its order.  See, e.g., Hutson v. Casey, 
484 So. 2d 1284, 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (“We therefore remand this case to the 
School Board for the purpose of entering an amended order which complies with 
the requirements of [section 120.57(1)], assuming that the Board, on remand, 
chooses not to accept the hearing officer’s recommended penalty.”); Lusskin v. 
Dep’t of Health, Bd. of Med., 820 So. 2d 424, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“The 
Board is imbued with the authority to accept or reject the hearing officer’s penalty 
recommendation. . . .  We reverse the order of the Board and remand the case for 
compliance with section 120.57(1)(l), Florida Statutes (2001).”). 
In Taylor’s case, the FPC concluded that revocation was “for the best 
interest of society and the Conditional Releasee.”  Revocation of Conditional 
Release Order at 1.  This statement was arguably sufficient to meet the requirement 
of section 120.57(1)(l) that the FPC “stat[e] with particularity its reasons” for 
rejecting the penalty recommended by the parole examiner.  But even if this 
statement was insufficiently particular, Taylor has not shown that he has suffered a 
grievous injury.  Taylor admitted that he violated his conditional release by using 
marijuana.  As a result of that evidence of a willful and substantial violation, the 
FPC undeniably had an adequate basis to exercise its discretion to revoke Taylor’s 
 
 
- 11 - 
conditional release.  If the FPC’s order did violate section 120.57(1)(l), the error 
could have been remedied by providing an opportunity for the FPC to supplement 
its order.  Accordingly, the circuit court’s denial of his habeas petition did not 
result in a miscarriage of justice. 
III.  CONCLUSION 
 
Based on the foregoing, we adhere to Sheley, quash Taylor, and remand this 
case for reinstatement of the circuit court’s order that denied Taylor’s petition for a 
writ of habeas corpus. 
 
It is so ordered. 
 
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUINCE, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., 
concur. 
LEWIS, J., concurs in result. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal – Direct 
Conflict of Decisions  
 
First District  – Case No. 1D11-2081 
 
(Madison County)  
 
Sarah J. Rumph, General Counsel, Florida Parole Commission, Tallahassee, 
Florida,  
 
for Petitioner 
  
Christopher M. Jones and Peter P. Sleasman, Florida Institutional Legal Services, 
Newberry, Florida,  
 
 
 
- 12 - 
 
for Respondent