Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 947.141 (2025)
Violations of conditional release, control release, or conditional medical release or addiction-recovery supervision.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session Cite as: Fla. Stat. § 947.141 (2025)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
947.141 Violations of conditional release, control release, or conditional medical release or addiction-recovery supervision.—
(1) If a member of the commission or a duly authorized representative of the commission has reasonable grounds to believe that an offender who is on release supervision under s. 947.1405, s. 947.146, s. 947.149, or s. 944.4731 has violated the terms and conditions of the release in a material respect, such member or representative may cause a warrant to be issued for the arrest of the releasee; if the offender was found to be a sexual predator, the warrant must be issued.
(2) Upon the arrest on a felony charge of an offender who is on release supervision under s. 947.1405, s. 947.146, s. 947.149, or s. 944.4731, the offender must be detained without bond until the initial appearance of the offender at which a judicial determination of probable cause is made. If the trial court judge determines that there was no probable cause for the arrest, the offender may be released. If the trial court judge determines that there was probable cause for the arrest, such determination also constitutes reasonable grounds to believe that the offender violated the conditions of the release. Within 24 hours after the trial court judge’s finding of probable cause, the detention facility administrator or designee shall notify the commission and the department of the finding and transmit to each a facsimile copy of the probable cause affidavit or the sworn offense report upon which the trial court judge’s probable cause determination is based. The offender must continue to be detained without bond for a period not exceeding 72 hours excluding weekends and holidays after the date of the probable cause determination, pending a decision by the commission whether to issue a warrant charging the offender with violation of the conditions of release. Upon the issuance of the commission’s warrant, the offender must continue to be held in custody pending a revocation hearing held in accordance with this section.
(3) Within 45 days after notice to the Florida Commission on Offender Review of the arrest of a releasee charged with a violation of the terms and conditions of conditional release, control release, conditional medical release, or addiction-recovery supervision, the releasee must be afforded a hearing conducted by a commissioner or a duly authorized representative thereof. If the releasee elects to proceed with a hearing, the releasee must be informed orally and in writing of the following:
(a) The alleged violation with which the releasee is charged.
(b) The releasee’s right to be represented by counsel.
(c) The releasee’s right to be heard in person.
(d) The releasee’s right to secure, present, and compel the attendance of witnesses relevant to the proceeding.
(e) The releasee’s right to produce documents on the releasee’s own behalf.
(f) The releasee’s right of access to all evidence used against the releasee and to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.
(g) The releasee’s right to waive the hearing.
(4) Within a reasonable time following the hearing, the commissioner or the commissioner’s duly authorized representative who conducted the hearing shall make findings of fact in regard to the alleged violation. A panel of no fewer than two commissioners shall enter an order determining whether the charge of violation of conditional release, control release, conditional medical release, or addiction-recovery supervision has been sustained based upon the findings of fact presented by the hearing commissioner or authorized representative. By such order, the panel may revoke conditional release, control release, conditional medical release, or addiction-recovery supervision and thereby return the releasee to prison to serve the sentence imposed, reinstate the original order granting the release, or enter such other order as it considers proper. Effective for inmates whose offenses were committed on or after July 1, 1995, the panel may order the placement of a releasee, upon a finding of violation pursuant to this subsection, into a local detention facility as a condition of supervision.
(5) Effective for inmates whose offenses were committed on or after July 1, 1995, notwithstanding the provisions of ss. 775.08, former 921.001, 921.002, 921.187, 921.188, 944.02, and 951.23, or any other law to the contrary, by such order as provided in subsection (4), the panel, upon a finding of guilt, may, as a condition of continued supervision, place the releasee in a local detention facility for a period of incarceration not to exceed 22 months. Prior to the expiration of the term of incarceration, or upon recommendation of the chief correctional officer of that county, the commission shall cause inquiry into the inmate’s release plan and custody status in the detention facility and consider whether to restore the inmate to supervision, modify the conditions of supervision, or enter an order of revocation, thereby causing the return of the inmate to prison to serve the sentence imposed. The provisions of this section do not prohibit the panel from entering such other order or conducting any investigation that it deems proper. The commission may only place a person in a local detention facility pursuant to this section if there is a contractual agreement between the chief correctional officer of that county and the Department of Corrections. The agreement must provide for a per diem reimbursement for each person placed under this section, which is payable by the Department of Corrections for the duration of the offender’s placement in the facility. This section does not limit the commission’s ability to place a person in a local detention facility for less than 1 year.
(6) Whenever a conditional release, control release, conditional medical release, or addiction-recovery supervision is revoked by a panel of no fewer than two commissioners and the releasee is ordered to be returned to prison, the releasee, by reason of the misconduct, shall be deemed to have forfeited all gain-time or commutation of time for good conduct, as provided for by law, earned up to the date of release. However, if a conditional medical release is revoked due to the improved medical or physical condition of the releasee, the releasee shall not forfeit gain-time accrued before the date of conditional medical release. This subsection does not deprive the prisoner of the right to gain-time or commutation of time for good conduct, as provided by law, from the date of return to prison.
(7) If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that an offender who is on release supervision under s. 947.1405, s. 947.146, s. 947.149, or s. 944.4731 has violated the terms and conditions of his or her release by committing a felony offense, the officer shall arrest the offender without a warrant, and a warrant need not be issued in the case.
History.—s. 20, ch. 88-122; s. 17, ch. 89-531; s. 20, ch. 90-337; s. 1, ch. 93-2; s. 5, ch. 93-61; s. 5, ch. 93-277; s. 1, ch. 94-121; ss. 40, 58, ch. 95-283; s. 30, ch. 97-194; s. 4, ch. 97-239; s. 15, ch. 2001-110; s. 2, ch. 2002-255; s. 49, ch. 2004-11; s. 45, ch. 2014-191.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Hull v. Moore
Hull v. Moore (2001)
“141(4), Florida Statutes (1991) is the applicable statute to appellant's situation, section 947.141 was rewritten in 1993 and subsection (4) with changes became subsection (6).”
Collins v. Hendrickson (2005)
“thoughtful, well reasoned and detailed *1327 analysis of the factual and procedural history relevant to Petitioner’s claims and after correctly applying federal law, has rendered her Report and Recommendation, concluding that the Florida Parole Commission (“FPC”), in its July…”
McNeil v. Canty (2009)
“" § 944.275(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991). Combined, these statutes appear to instruct DOC to calculate an inmate's new release date by using the gain time that is forfeited upon revocation.”
Mayes v. Moore (2002)
“" *974 See § 947.141(6), Fla. Stat. (2001) (emphasis added).”
Andrews v. Florida Parole Com'n (2000)
“291 is required to provide the Commission with the name and inmate identification number for each eligible inmate, the responsibility for an inmate's actual conditional release is solely with the Commission. We conclude that the Commission functions in a quasi-judicial capacity…”
Gay v. Singletary (1997)
“[6] Section 947.141, Florida Statutes (1995), concerns revocations of several of the Parole Commission's release programs, including Control Release.”
Lewis v. Moore (2000)
“The last two sentences of subsection (14) cover Lewis, and while subsection (14) does not actually cancel or forfeit control release credits, it cross-references section 947.141, which provides for the forfeiture of gain time.”
Duncan v. Moore (2000)
“See § 947.141, Fla. Stat. (1999); Fla. Admin.”
Rivera v. Singletary (1998)
“291(2) [4] and especially section 947.141, [5] to either grant or deny a releasee credit for time spent on Conditional Release when that release is revoked due to a violation of the terms and conditions of release.”
Gillard v. State (2002)
“In the petition below, he challenged the revocation of his conditional release by contending that the Florida Parole Commission was without jurisdiction to conduct the revocation hearing beyond the 45-day time period in section 947.141(2), Florida Statutes (1991).”
Florida Parole Commission v. Robert Taylor (2014)
“Section 947.141(4), Florida Statutes (2010), conditions the FPC’s authority to reject a parole examiner’s finding of fact or conclusion of law but grants the FPC discretion to “revoke conditional release, control release, conditional medical release, or addic *785 tion-recovery…”
Bowles v. Singletary (1997)
“146(9) provided that if there were reasonable grounds to believe a releasee had violated the terms and conditions of release, the releasee would be subject to section 947.141; both section 947.146(9) and section 947.”
— 947.141(1) — 1 case
Andrews v. Florida Parole Com'n (2000)
“291 is required to provide the Commission with the name and inmate identification number for each eligible inmate, the responsibility for an inmate's actual conditional release is solely with the Commission. We conclude that the Commission functions in a quasi-judicial capacity…”
— 947.141(2) — 2 cases
Gillard v. State (2002)
“In the petition below, he challenged the revocation of his conditional release by contending that the Florida Parole Commission was without jurisdiction to conduct the revocation hearing beyond the 45-day time period in section 947.141(2), Florida Statutes (1991).”
— 947.141(3) — 5 cases
Rivera v. Singletary (1998)
“291(2) [4] and especially section 947.141, [5] to either grant or deny a releasee credit for time spent on Conditional Release when that release is revoked due to a violation of the terms and conditions of release.”
McNeil v. Canty (2009)
“" § 944.275(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991). Combined, these statutes appear to instruct DOC to calculate an inmate's new release date by using the gain time that is forfeited upon revocation.”
Crosby v. Bolden (2004)
Palazon v. Crosby (2005)
— 947.141(4) — 15 cases
McNeil v. Canty (2009)
“" § 944.275(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991). Combined, these statutes appear to instruct DOC to calculate an inmate's new release date by using the gain time that is forfeited upon revocation.”
Florida Parole Commission v. Robert Taylor (2014)
“Section 947.141(4), Florida Statutes (2010), conditions the FPC’s authority to reject a parole examiner’s finding of fact or conclusion of law but grants the FPC discretion to “revoke conditional release, control release, conditional medical release, or addic *785 tion-recovery…”
Hull v. Moore (2001)
“141(4), Florida Statutes (1991) is the applicable statute to appellant's situation, section 947.141 was rewritten in 1993 and subsection (4) with changes became subsection (6).”
Scantling v. State (1998)
— 947.141(6) — 7 cases
Mayes v. Moore (2002)
“" *974 See § 947.141(6), Fla. Stat. (2001) (emphasis added).”
Hull v. Moore (2001)
“141(4), Florida Statutes (1991) is the applicable statute to appellant's situation, section 947.141 was rewritten in 1993 and subsection (4) with changes became subsection (6).”
Lewis v. Moore (2000)
“The last two sentences of subsection (14) cover Lewis, and while subsection (14) does not actually cancel or forfeit control release credits, it cross-references section 947.141, which provides for the forfeiture of gain time.”
Wainwright v. State (2008)
Davis v. State (2006)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.