Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 947.1745 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 947.1745 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 947.1745

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLVII
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS
Chapter 947
FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW; CONDITIONAL RELEASE; CONTROL RELEASE; PAROLE
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 947.1745
947.1745 Establishment of effective parole release date.If the inmate’s institutional conduct has been satisfactory, the presumptive parole release date shall become the effective parole release date as follows:
(1) Within 90 days before the presumptive parole release date, a hearing examiner shall conduct a final interview with the inmate in order to establish an effective parole release date and parole release plan. If it is determined that the inmate’s institutional conduct has been unsatisfactory, a statement to this effect shall be made in writing with particularity and shall be forwarded to a panel of no fewer than two commissioners appointed by the chair.
(2) If the panel finds that the inmate’s parole release plan is unsatisfactory, this finding may constitute new information and good cause in exceptional circumstances as described in s. 947.173, under which the panel may extend the presumptive parole release date for not more than 1 year. The panel may review any subsequently proposed parole release plan at any time.
(3) Within 30 days after receipt of the inmate’s parole release plan, the panel shall determine whether to authorize the effective parole release date. The inmate must be notified of the decision in writing within 30 days after the decision by the panel.
(4) If an effective date of parole has been established, release on that date is conditioned upon the completion of a satisfactory plan for parole supervision. An effective date of parole may be delayed for up to 60 days by a commissioner without a hearing for the development and approval of release plans.
(5) An effective date of parole may be delayed by a commissioner for up to 60 days without a hearing based on:
(a) New information not available at the time of the effective parole release date interview.
(b) Unsatisfactory institutional conduct which occurred subsequent to the effective parole release date interview.
(c) The lack of a verified parole release plan.
(6) Within 90 days before the effective parole release date interview, the commission shall send written notice to the sentencing judge of any inmate who has been scheduled for an effective parole release date interview. If the sentencing judge is no longer serving, the notice must be sent to the chief judge of the circuit in which the offender was sentenced. The chief judge may designate any circuit judge within the circuit to act in the place of the sentencing judge. Within 30 days after receipt of the commission’s notice, the sentencing judge, or the designee, shall send to the commission notice of objection to parole release, if the judge objects to such release. If there is objection by the judge, such objection may constitute good cause in exceptional circumstances as described in s. 947.173, and the commission may schedule a subsequent review within 2 years, extending the presumptive parole release date beyond that time. However, for an inmate who has been:
(a) Convicted of murder or attempted murder;
(b) Convicted of sexual battery or attempted sexual battery;
(c) Convicted of kidnapping or attempted kidnapping;
(d) Convicted of robbery, burglary of a dwelling, burglary of a structure or conveyance, or breaking and entering, or the attempt thereof of any of these crimes, in which a human being is present and a sexual act is attempted or completed; or
(e) Sentenced to a 25-year minimum mandatory sentence previously provided in s. 775.082,

the commission may schedule a subsequent review under this subsection once every 7 years, extending the presumptive parole release date beyond that time if the commission finds that it is not reasonable to expect that parole would be granted at a review during the following years and states the bases for the finding in writing. For an inmate who is within 7 years of his or her release date, the commission may schedule a subsequent review before the 7-year schedule. With any subsequent review the same procedure outlined above will be followed. If the judge remains silent with respect to parole release, the commission may authorize an effective parole release date. This subsection applies if the commission desires to consider the establishment of an effective release date without delivery of the effective parole release date interview. Notice of the effective release date must be sent to the sentencing judge, and either the judge’s response to the notice must be received or the time period allowed for such response must elapse before the commission may authorize an effective release date.

History.s. 14, ch. 82-171; s. 34, ch. 83-131; s. 190, ch. 83-216; ss. 33, 37, ch. 86-183; ss. 22, 67, ch. 88-122; s. 17, ch. 89-531; s. 20, ch. 90-337; s. 53, ch. 91-110; s. 1, ch. 93-2; s. 9, ch. 93-61; s. 1676, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 97-289; s. 3, ch. 2010-95; s. 3, ch. 2013-119.

F.S. 947.1745 on Google Scholar

F.S. 947.1745 on Casetext

Amendments to 947.1745


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 947.1745
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 947.1745.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

ROOKS, v. STATE, 224 So. 3d 272 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . . § 947.1745, Fla. Stat. (2015). . . .

ATWELL, v. STATE, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016)

. . . . § 947.1745, Fla. Stat. (2015). . . .

L. SPRADLEY, v. PAROLE COMMISSION,, 198 So. 3d 642 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . See § 947.1745(6), Fla. Stat. (2012); Fla. Admin. Code R. 23-21.015(1) (2012). . . . See § 947.1745(6); Fla. Admin. Code R. 23-21.015(1). Thereafter, a parole examiner interviewed Mr. . . . The pertinent wording of both section 947.1745(6) and rule 23-21.015(1) (2012) is as follows: Within . . . The pertinent wording of both section 947.1745(6) and rule 23-21.015(1) (2012) is as follows: "Within . . . that the person’s release will be Compatible with his or her own welfare and the welfare of society. . 947.1745 . . .

INMON, v. FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW,, 162 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . sentencing court to raise "objections to petitioner being released on parole, as provided by section 947.1745 . . . permitting the sentencing court to raise objections to him being released on parole pursuant to section 947.1745 . . . Section 947.1745(6) provides that prior to an effective parole release date interview, “the commission . . . [T]he amended section[ ] 947.1745(4) [now codified at 947.1745(6) ] represents] a mere procedural change . . . (renumbering subsection 947.1745(4) as subsection (6)). Gattis predates Williams by 5 years. . . .

B. HAWKINS, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION,, 88 So. 3d 436 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . for setting Petitioner’s parole interview within five years instead of two years pursuant to Section 947.1745 . . .

FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, v. SPAZIANO,, 48 So. 3d 714 (Fla. 2010)

. . . Section 947.1745, Florida Statutes (2009), directs the Commission to establish the inmate’s effective . . .

TOOMA, v. DAVID,, 381 F. App'x 977 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 947.1745, which authorizes consideration of a judicial objection and the suitability of the prisoner . . . Stat. § 947.1745(6) — which allows the FPC to obtain input from the sentencing judge about objections . . . The provision Tooma challenges, section 947.1745(6), consists of such procedural changes. . . .

TOOMA, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION,, 612 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . § 947.1745. . . . Stat. § 947.1745(2). . . . Stat. § 947.1745(6). . . . Stat. § 947.1745(6). Id. . . . . Stat. § 947.1745(6) (amended 1997). . . .

F. MORRIS, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION,, 991 So. 2d 431 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . extending his presumptive parole release date based on a judicial objection to parole pursuant to section 947.1745 . . . court’s correspondence did not constitute an objection to parole release” within the meaning of section 947.1745 . . .

ARMOUR, Jr. v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION,, 963 So. 2d 305 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . See § 947.1745(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . .

FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, v. CHAPMAN,, 919 So. 2d 689 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 947.1745(1), Fla. Stat. . . .

W. SANDERS, v. STATE FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION,, 756 So. 2d 236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . See § 947.1745, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

GAINES, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION,, 743 So. 2d 118 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . While Gaines had alleged that application to his sentence of section 947.1745(6), Florida Statutes (1997 . . . On October 1, 1986, the Florida Legislature amended section 947.1745(4), Florida Statutes, to require . . . The statute was further amended and codified as section 947.1745(6) and now requires the following: If . . . On May 12, 1997, Judge Alex Ferrer, who was appointed pursuant to section 947.1745(6), Florida Statutes . . . In it, he alleged that section 947.1745 was unconstitutionally applied to him. . . .

L. MEOLA, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, L. v. K. v. K., 732 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1998)

. . . See §§ 947.002(2), 947.165, 947.172, 947.173, 947.174, 947.1745, 947.1746, Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . .

J. HARPER, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION,, 626 So. 2d 336 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . 947.172, Florida Statutes (1991), governs the establishment of a presumptive parole release date; section 947.1745 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION,, 625 So. 2d 926 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Retrospective application of the provisions in section 947.1745(4) would permit the cir-euit judge to . . . Section 947.1745(4) states that any objection by the sentencing court to an inmate’s release on parole . . . Under sections 947.173 and 947.1745(4) the judge’s objection to release is “good cause in exceptional . . . This statutory provision was superseded by the adoption of section 947.1745(4) in 1987. . . . Subsection 947.1745(4) further provides that, "The provisions of this subsection shall be applicable . . .

FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, v. JACKSON,, 618 So. 2d 766 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Prior to the June 2, 1988, release date, and pursuant to section 947.1745(4), Florida Statutes, the commission . . . Based on good cause in exceptional circumstances, pursuant to Section 947.1745(4) Florida Statutes, Circuit . . . On December 13, 1991, the lower court entered an order granting mandamus relief which found section 947.1745 . . . 535 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. denied, 542 So.2d 1333 (Fla.1989), which held that sections 947.1745 . . . Therein, the circuit court “decline[d] to find Section 947.1745(4) facially unconstitutional.” . . .

FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, v. SNIPES,, 616 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . On February 13, 1991, the Commission notified Snipes’ sentencing court, pursuant to section 947.1745( . . . filed a petition for writ of mandamus, which the trial court granted, stating that although section 947.1745 . . . We conclude that the judicial objection in this case provided a proper basis under section 947.1745(4 . . . EXTENSION OF THE INMATE’S PPRD, CONSTITUTE GOOD CAUSE IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 947.1745 . . . Section 947.1745(4) provides, in part, as follows: Within 90 days before the effective parole release . . .

TUBB, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION,, 580 So. 2d 616 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . . § 947.1745, Fla. Stat. (1989). . . .

GATTIS, v. FLORIDA PAROLE PROBATION COMMISSION,, 535 So. 2d 640 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . court considered Gattis’ petition for writ of habeas corpus and concluded that sections 947.165 and 947.1745 . . . Ninety days prior to the arrival of Gattis’ PPRD, and pursuant to section 947.1745(4), the Commission . . . important to the review of an inmate’s PPRD the sentencing judge’s objection thereto, amended section 947.1745 . . . sentencing court files a written objection to the parole release of an inmate as provided for in s. 947.1745 . . . Neither do we hold that sections 947.165(1) and 947.1745(4) unconstitutionally invade the separation . . .

FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, v. G. DORNAU,, 534 So. 2d 789 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Pursuant to section 947.1745(4), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.), the Commission sent a letter to the sentencing . . . Dornau requested review under section 947.173, asserting that the Commission had violated section 947.1745 . . . no explanation of his objection other than that other parties objected to the release, that section 947.1745 . . . mandamus, requesting that the Commission be directed to establish his EPRD without regard to section 947.1745 . . . He asserted that section 947.1745(4) is vio-lative of due process, fails to provide adequate procedural . . .

FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, v. CUNARD,, 490 So. 2d 88 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . .-174(6), Fla.Stat. (1981) (now § 947.1745, Fla.Stat. (1983)). . . .

MOORE, v. L. WAINWRIGHT,, 469 So. 2d 882 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . . § 947.1745; see also Florida Parole and Probation Commission v. Paige, 462 So.2d 817 (Fla.1985). . . . This is not a case of new information as contemplated by section 947.1745, but of a new interpretation . . .

FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, v. H. PAIGE,, 462 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1985)

. . . .” § 947.174(6), Fla.Stat. (1981) (now § 947.1745, Fla.Stat. (1983)). . . .

E. PASCHAL, v. L. WAINWRIGHT,, 738 F.2d 1173 (11th Cir. 1984)

. . . . § 947.1745 (1983 Supp.); May v. . . .