Case Title: Sheley v. Florida Parole Com'n

Citation: 720 So. 2d 216

Docket Number: 92260

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1998-10-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
720 So. 2d 216 (1998)
Robert P. SHELEY, Petitioner,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.
No. 92260.

Supreme Court of Florida.
October 22, 1998.
Robert P. Sheley, Calipatria, CA, Petitioner, pro se.
William L. Camper, General Counsel, and Kim M. Fluharty, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
SHAW, Justice.
We have for review Sheley v. Florida Parole Commission, 703 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), wherein the district court certified conflict with Johnson v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 543 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We approve Sheley as explained below.
The relevant facts are set forth in the district court opinion under review:
Sheley, 703 So. 2d  at 1204. Sheley appealed the circuit court order and the district court treated the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and denied the petition.
Sheley claims that the district court erred in treating his appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. He contends that he was entitled to a full review on the merits of his claim rather than a review under the more restrictive standard that applies to petitions for writ of certiorari. We disagree.
Mandamus is an accepted remedy for reviewing an order of the Florida Parole Commission. Griffith v. Florida Parole and Probation Comm'n, 485 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1986). Such petitions are properly directed to the circuit courts. Jones v. Florida Dep't of Corrections, 615 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). A circuit court order denying relief is reviewable in the district court by certiorari pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030, which provides in relevant part:
Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(2).
The district court in the present case concluded that once an inmate has had a full review of a Parole Commission order in the circuit court, he or she is unentitled to a second full bite at the apple in the district court:
Sheley, 703 So. 2d  at 1206. The district court drew an analogy to two lines of cases: (1) those cases wherein a defendant files a petition for an extraordinary writ in circuit court to review an order of the county court;[1] and (2) those cases governing secondary appellate review of local administrative action.[2] In both lines of cases, the petitioner is unentitled to a second plenary appeal on the merits.
We agree with the district court's reasoning and find its analogies apt. Sheley, we note, cites no statute or rule that would provide authority for a second plenary appeal of a Parole Commission order in the district court, nor does he advance any sound policy reason for formulating such a practice. Further, the district court in the present case reviewed Sheley's petition and determined that "[t]here has been no showing that the *218 circuit court failed to afford the inmate due process of law or that the court departed from the essential requirements of the law." Sheley, 703 So. 2d  at 1206. We find that Sheley has been afforded extensive judicial review of his claim and has been deprived of no rights.
Based on the foregoing, we hold 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 approve the result in Sheley on this issue and disapprove language in Johnson that is inconsistent with our decision.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and OVERTON, KOGAN, WELLS, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
[1]  See, e.g., State v. Frazee, 617 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
[2]  See, e.g., City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1982).