No. AD-412.District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
February 23, 1982. Rehearing Denied March 24, 1982.
Page 585
Russell Elliott Todd, Jr., pro se.
Rosa H. Carson, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Florida Parole and Probation Commission, Tallahassee, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, an inmate at Florida State Prison, became eligible for parole in January, 1981. He was given a parole release date conditioned on his waiver of extradition to Maryland. He refused to sign a waiver of extradition procedures and the parole did not become effective. Petitioner has time to serve on a sentence involving another criminal conviction in Maryland. Another offer of parole was “rescinded” in April, 1981, for the same reason.[1]
Petitioner asserts that the Florida Parole and Probation Commission does not have authority to make waiver of his right to statutory extradition procedures a condition of parole in the manner here attempted. The extradition rights of an accused person are set forth in § 941.10, Florida Statutes (1979), a law administered by prescribed officers other than the Commission. The Commission has, however, withheld parole because petitioner has not agreed, as a condition of parole, to sign a waiver of such statutory rights.[2]
The parole plan offered by the Commission contemplated parole to Maryland where petitioner would serve his Maryland sentence while on parole from his Florida sentence. Parole compacts with other states are governed by § 949.07, Florida Statutes (1979), which declares that “[a]ll legal requirements to obtain extradition of fugitives from justice are hereby expressly waived on the part of states party hereto as to such persons.” (§ 949.07(3)) (e.s.). Waiver is accordingly accomplished by the statute itself, and petitioner’s refusal to accept the terms offered constituted a rejection of the Commission’s proper offer of parole.
We conclude also that the Commission committed no error by holding petitioner following his rejection of proffered parole. It has authority to withhold a grant of parole after authorizing an effective parole release date, if the parties are unable to agree on a satisfactory release plan, or to
Page 586
agree to the terms and conditions of parole. § 947.174(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1979). Even assuming the Commission should have included in the proposed parole plan a reference to its authority for parole to Maryland pursuant to § 949.07, petitioner presents no facts or law supporting any right to parole on terms other than those offered. Petitioner did not accept the plan offered him, and the Commission, therefore, properly withheld parole.
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
McCORD, LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
State Attorney Staff Firearm Possession in Courtrooms Number: AGO 2025-03 Issued: October 20, 2025 Ed…
Certain Professional Firearm Regulations after McDaniels Number: AGO 2025-02 Issued: October 20, 2025 The Honorable…
Moving the dates of Municipal Elections absent voter approval Number: AGO2025-01 Issued: June 11, 2025…
Sunshine Law – Search and Selection Committees Number: AGO2023-04 Issued October 30, 2023 Rachel Kamoutsas…
Firearms - Definitions Number: AGO2023-03 Issued October 02, 2023 Representative Shane Abbott Florida House of…
Clerk’s sale of court-ordered debts to debt purchasers Number: AGO 2023-02 Issued July 21, 2023…