STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
WALTER THOMAS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 77-652RX
) FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION ) COMMISSION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
FINAL ORDER
The undersigned Hearing Officer having been duly assigned to this cause enters the following:
Petitioner seeks, pursuant to Section 120.56, F.S., an administrative determination of the invalidity of Rule 23-16.09(1)-(4) F.A.C., a rule of the Florida Parole and Probation Commission. The petition alleges that in accordance with the challenged rule Respondent held a lengthy hearing in which Petitioner participated, to determine whether Petitioner's parole should be revoked. Subsequent to the hearing Respondent entered an order revoking Petitioner's parole. The petition then sets forth lengthy factual allegations upon which Petitioner argues Respondent could not have factually nor legally concluded that his parole should be revoked. In Paragraph 8 of the petition is found the statement of the grounds upon which Petitioner bases his allegation that the challenged rule is an invalid exercise of validly delegated legislative authority. The substance of those grounds is that Respondent, in the opinion of Petitioner, erred in its factual conclusions on the evidence presented at the hearing and erred in law in revoking Petitioner's parole in the face of a directed verdict in Petitioner's favor in a criminal prosecution involving the same charge upon which the parole revocation proceeding was based.
A proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, is one solely for the purpose of making an administrative determination of the invalidity of a particular administrative rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of validly delegated legislative authority. The purpose of such a proceeding is not to determine a particular individual`s rights in a given fact situation or the correctness of some agency action taken pursuant to a rule. The Hearing Officer does not have the authority in a rule challenge proceeding to grant specific relief to an individual petitioner. The Hearing Officer's authority is limited to a determination of the validity of the challenged rule. In the instant cause it is apparent that Petitioner is seeking to challenge the action taken by Respondent in revoking Petitioner's parole.
The petition does not set forth sufficient grounds to state a cause of action for the determination of the invalidity of the challenged rule. Rather the essence of the petition is a challenge to the manner in which Respondent applied the challenged rule to Petitioner and the conclusion drawn by Respondent as a result of that application.
Therefore, it is, hereby ORDERED:
The petition is dismissed for failure to sufficiently allege grounds upon which the validity of the subject rule may be challenged.
DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida.
CHRIS H. BENTLEY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
(904) 488-9675
COPIES FURNISHED:
Richard A. Belz, Esquire Ms. Liz Cloud
2614 S.W. 34th Street Department of State Gainesville, Florida 32608 403 E. Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Carolyn Snurkowski, Esquire
P.O. Box 3168
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedure Committee Room 101, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Apr. 29, 1977 | Final Order. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Apr. 29, 1977 | DOAH Final Order | Petitioner seeks personal relief--deny petition--individual circumstances are not improper means to challenge a rule. |
