IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA KEITH N. SMITH, DC# 736238 JODY C. COLVIN, DC # 115879 WILLIAM WRIGHT, DC# 046175, Petitioners, vs. Case No. SC05-776 L.T. No. 2D04-2735 THE FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent. / RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON JURIDICTION On petition for discretionary review from a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida BRADLEY R. BISCHOFF Assistant General Counsel Florida Parole Commission 2601 Blair Stone Road, Bldg. C Room 219 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2450 (850) 488-4460 Fla. Bar # 714224
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Table of Citations iii Preliminary Statement 1 Statement of the Case and the Facts 2 Statement of Issue 5 THIS COURT SHOULD DECLINE TO ACCEPT DISCRETIONARY JURIDICTION IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DISTRICT COURT OPINION BELOW AND THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE CITED Summary of Argument 5 Argument 6 Conclusion 11 Certificate of Service 12 Certificate of Compliance 12 Appendix to Respondent s Brief on Jurisdiction 13 Table of Contents 14 ii
TABLE OF CITATIONS PAGE David v. Meadows, 881 So.2d 653 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2004) 9 Evans v. Singletary, 737 So.2d 505, 508 (Fla. 1999) 6, 8 Parole Commission v. Smith, 896 So.2d 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) 5 OTHER 394.915, Florida Statutes 5,6 947.1405, Florida Statutes 7,12 iii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Appellant/Petitioner below, the Florida Parole Commission, will be referred to as either "Respondent" or the Commission in this brief. Appellees/Respondents below, Keith N, Smith, Jody C. Colvin, and William Wright, will be referred to either as "the Petitioners". 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS KEITH N. SMITH 1. Petitioner Smith has been convicted of numerous counts of Lewd and Lascivious Acts upon children as well as Sexual Assault. 2. On April 9, 2002, Petitioner Smith completed the incarceration portion of his sentences and was released from prison to Conditional Release supervision, subject to conditions of supervision until December 2, 2007. Pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act, Section 394.915, Florida Statutes, instead of being released into the community, Petitioner Smith was detained and housed at the Florida Civil Commitment Center in DeSoto County. 3. On January 15, 2004, the Parole Commission issued a warrant for Petitioner Smith s arrest for violations of conditions of his supervision, to wit: failure to submit to urinalysis and failure to participate in sex offender treatment. JODY CHRISTOPHER COLVIN 4. Petitioner Colvin has a significant prior criminal history culminating in convictions for Robbery and Sexual Battery. 5. On December 18, 2002, the Parole Commission revoked Petitioner Colvin s Conditional Release supervision. 2
6. On September 16, 2003, Petitioner Colvin completed the incarceration portion of his sentences and was again released from prison to Conditional Release supervision, subject to conditions of supervision until January 20, 2004. Pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act, Section 394.915, Florida Statutes, instead of being released into the community, Petitioner Colvin was detained and housed at the Florida Civil Commitment Center in DeSoto County. 7. On January 16, 2004, the Parole Commission issued a warrant for Petitioner Colvin s arrest for violation of a condition of his supervision, to wit: failure to obey all laws by committing an Assault and/or Battery. WILLIAM WRIGHT 8. Petitioner Wright has a significant prior criminal history culminating in convictions for Sexual Battery. 9. Petitioner Wright was released from prison to Conditional Release supervision on June 9, 1995, and had his supervision revoked on September 20, 1995. 10. On June 26, 2001, Petitioner Wright completed the incarceration portion of his sentences and was again released from prison to Conditional Release supervision, subject to conditions of supervision until March 8, 2004. Pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act, Section 394.915, Florida Statutes, instead 3
of being released into the community, Petitioner Wright was detained and housed at the Florida Civil Commitment Center in DeSoto County. 11. On January 15, 2004, the Parole Commission issued a warrant for Petitioner Wright s arrest for violations of conditions of his supervision, to wit: failure to submit to urinalysis and failure to participate in sex offender treatment. LOWER COURT PROCEEDINGS 12. On or about February 19, 2004, the Petitioners filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Prohibition seeking to have the court prohibit the Parole Commission from subjecting them to the provisions of Section 947.1405, Florida Statutes, the Conditional Release Program Act and instituting Conditional Release violation proceedings, while they are detained in the Florida Civil Commitment Center pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act. 13. On May 17, 2004, the lower court issued its Order Granting Petitioners Amended Petition for Writ of prohibition prohibiting the Commission from supervising the Petitioners and tolling their terms of Conditional Release supervision. 14. The Parole Commission sought certiorari review in the District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, case no. 2D04-2735, and on April 1, 2005, the District Court issued its opinion holding that prisoners 4
could be on Conditional Release supervision while detained under the Jimmy Ryce Act and that the Circuit Court departed from essential requirements of law in prohibiting the Commission from subjecting the prisoners to the requirements of the Conditional Release Program Act while they were within the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF). Parole Commission v. Smith, 896 So.2d 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (attached hereto as Appendix A). STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE THIS COURT SHOULD DECLINE TO ACCEPT DISCRETIONARY JURIDICTION IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DISTRICT COURT OPINION BELOW AND THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE CITED SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT This Court should decline to accept discretionary jurisdiction over the instant case because the Florida Supreme Court case cited as conflicting with the Second District opinion below is in fact not in conflict. 5
ARGUMENT ISSUE: THIS COURT SHOULD DECLINE TO ACCEPT DISCRETIONARY JURIDICTION IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DISTRICT COURT OPINION BELOW AND THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE CITED Petitioner contends that this Court should exercise its discretion to review the appellate decision below because it is in direct conflict with this Court s decision in Evans v. Singletary, 737 So.2d 505 (Fla. 1999) (attached hereto as Appendix B). The Parole Commission disagrees. The District Court below concluded that The circuit court noted that while the Release Act addresses release of a prisoner into the community and is "designed to help former inmates 'bridge the gap' between prison and the outside world," a Ryce Act detainee is not released into the community but instead is released from prison and committed to secure detention in a prison-like facility. The court commented that because a detainee remains in secure detention, "additional supervision of detainees by a correctional probation specialist would seem superfluous at best." The court added that the period of conditional release could be tolled during the time that a person is civilly committed and that conditional release supervision could begin when the detainee is actually released into the community. See Evans v. Singletary, 737 So.2d 505, 508 (Fla. 1999) (concluding that when a prisoner is serving two sentences, one of which is eligible for early release and conditional release supervision and 6
one of which is not, the conditional supervision period should be tolled until the inmate is released from prison). Although the circuit court's reasoning has some appeal, it is inconsistent with the language of the Ryce Act that recognizes persons may be serving an active term of conditional release supervision while committed under the Ryce Act. As the First District noted in David, "there are no restrictions found in the Conditional Release Program Act and the Jimmy Ryce Act that prohibit simultaneous compliance." 881 So.2d at 654. Additionally, in construing conflicting statutes, a specific statute covering a particular subject area controls over a statute covering the same and other subjects in more general terms. McKendry v. State, 641 So.2d 45, 46 (Fla. 1994); State v. Crews, 884 So.2d 1139, 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The later promulgated statute should prevail over the earlier one as the last expression of legislative intent. McKendry, 641 So.2d at 46. The Ryce Act is the more recent enactment. It is also the more specific statute because it concerns the protection of society from sexual predators while the Release Act addresses the protection of society from offenders who have committed a variety of violent crimes. Although the Release Act addresses generally the release of an individual from prison and into the community, the Ryce Act specifically recognizes that a detainee under its provisions may have an active term of conditional release, requiring that notice be given to the Parole Commission if the detainee is released from custody. Accordingly, we conclude that an individual may be on conditional release supervision while detained under the Ryce Act and that the circuit court erred in prohibiting the Parole Commission from subjecting the Appellees to the requirements of the Release Act while they were within the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's order granting the amended writ of prohibition. 7
Smith, supra at 969, 970. In Evans, this Court determined that a prisoner could not be serving his prison sentence and his post-prison supervision at the same time because this would constitute an undue windfall. Id. at 508. In contrast, Jimmy Ryce Act civil detention is not part of a prisoner s criminal sanction debt to the State, and there is consequently no windfall and no prohibition. The instant case and Evans address two different factual situations, and there is hence no valid comparison and thus no conflict. It is true that in order to give full effect to Section 947.1405 the Department of Corrections and the Parole Commission initiated the tolling of periods of Conditional Release supervision while in prison for inmates serving longer concurrent non Conditional Release eligible sentences, which administrative interpretation was approved by the Florida Supreme Court in Evans v. Singletary, supra. In the present case, however, the Petitioners were properly placed on post-prison supervision because DCF custody is not prison, and the Legislature has unequivocally required such supervision upon release from prison. The Commission notes that the District Court of Appeal, First District of Florida, has also ruled that Jimmy Ryce detention and Conditional 8
Release supervision may run concurrently. See David v. Meadows, 881 So. 2d 653. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing arguments and citations of legal authorities, Respondent respectfully urges this Honorable Court to decline accepting discretionary jurisdiction in this case. Respectfully submitted, BRADLEY R. BISCHOFF Assistant General Counsel 2601 Blair Stone Road, Bldg. C Room 219 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2450 (850) 488-4460 Fla. Bar # 714224 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT a true copy of the foregoing was furnished by U.S. Mail to Christopher E. Cosden, Assistant Public Defender, 2071 Ringling Boulevard, Fifth Floor, Sarasota, Florida 34237, this day of June, 2005. BRADLEY R. BISCHOFF Assistant General Counsel CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT the instant pleading was produced in Times New Roman 14-point font. BRADLEY R. BISCHOFF Assistant General Counsel 10