Summary
holding that a petition for writ of habeas corpus is appropriate to challenge the legality of supervised release and, by extension, continuation of probation
Summary of this case from Chadwick v. StateOpinion
No. 2D04-253.
December 17, 2004.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Ronald Ficarrotta, J.
Arnold S. Adams, pro se.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jenny Savino Sieg, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Arnold Adams filed a petition for habeas corpus, alleging that he was entitled to immediate release because he was illegally detained on an insufficient charging document and because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied the petition on the sole basis that Mr. Adams was no longer incarcerated. On appeal, Mr. Adams claims that he remains under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, and the State concedes that, if this is true, the petition should not have been denied on the basis that the petitioner was no longer incarcerated. As the State admits, supervised release constitutes a continuation rather than a termination of the sentence. See Sellers v. Bridges, 153 Fla. 586, 15 So.2d 293 (1943).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the circuit court to consider the petition on its merits.
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., and DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge, Concur.