CHARLES WILLIAMS v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA CHARLES WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. CASE NO. 1D05-3621 FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION. Respondent. ______________________________/ Opinion filed May 8, 2006. Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction Charles Williams, pro se, Petitioner. Kim M. Fluharty, General Counsel, and Susan Schwartz, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Parole Commission, Tallahassee, for Respondent. PER CURIAM. Charles Williams timely seeks certiorari review of an order denying his petition for writ of mandamus. We conclude that the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law when it denied relief concerning the Parole Commission s decision to decline to authorize petitioner s effective parole release date and to suspend his presumptive parole release date, and deny the petition insofar as it is directed to that issue. In addition, Williams unsuccessfully claimed below that the Parole Commission had deviated from the requirements of its own rules when it elected to schedule his next extraordinary interview within five years, rather than within two years of the date of his effective parole release date interview. We treat respondent s motion for remand as a concession that under the terms of rule 23-21.0155(3), Florida Administrative Code, Williams is entitled to relief as to this claim. See Rivera v. Moore, 825 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (mandamus will lie to compel an administrative agency to follow its own rules). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari in part, quash the portion of the circuit court s order denying relief as to this claim, and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith. PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND REMANDED. BARFIELD, DAVIS, and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
