Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Oct. 10, 1980
Latest Update: Mar. 30, 2017
Summary: 388 So. 2d 1341 (1980) Adolph COMER, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, Respondent. No. WW-82. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. October 10, 1980. Adolph Comer, pro se. No appearance for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petitioner, a prisoner within the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the Florida Parole and Probation Commission has violated legislative directives in its establishment
Summary: 388 So. 2d 1341 (1980) Adolph COMER, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, Respondent. No. WW-82. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. October 10, 1980. Adolph Comer, pro se. No appearance for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petitioner, a prisoner within the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the Florida Parole and Probation Commission has violated legislative directives in its establishment ..
More
388 So. 2d 1341 (1980)
Adolph COMER, Petitioner,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, Respondent.
No. WW-82.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
October 10, 1980.
Adolph Comer, pro se.
No appearance for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner, a prisoner within the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the Florida Parole and Probation Commission has violated legislative directives in its establishment of certain rules.[1]
While the petitioner claims a jurisdictional base in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (1979), we find no showing of exhaustion of administrative remedies here. Petitioner is entitled to seek § 120.54(5), F.S., or § 120.56, F.S., proceedings, which may resolve the issues without resorting to premature judicial intervention. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed without prejudice to seek review pursuant to § 120.68, F.S., of any final orders of the Parole and Probation Commission resulting from Chapter 120 proceedings.
WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., and WOODIE A. LILES (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
NOTES
[1] Petitioner asserts that Rule 23-19.02(2)(g), Fla. Admin. Code, violates legislative intent as expressed in s. 947.165(1), Fla. Stat. (1979), in that the rule may act to impose a longer term to serve than is proper by taking certain factors into account more than once. We do not speak to the merits of this claim.
