Woulard v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partErvin, Judge
I agree with the majority that the circumstances of this case do not violate due process protections as they relate to the failure to give Woulard notice of the proposed rule change. I would, however, reverse the presumptive parole release date (PPRD), because, in my judgment, the Commission’s reliance on guidelines adopted after the date of the crime in setting the PPRD is contrary to the constitutional proscription against ex post facto laws. Without belaboring the point, I would adopt the well-reasoned dissent of my Brother Shivers in May v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 424 So.2d…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Weaver v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- United States Parole Commission v. GeraghtySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Gary Welsh v. Larry Mizell, Warden, Vienna Correctional Center, Vienna, Illinois, and Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General of the State of IllinoisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
- John S. Marshall v. W. L. Garrison, Warden, Maurice Sigler, Chairman, U.S. Parole CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1981
- Overfield v. FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATIONDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.