IN T H E SUPRE ME C00RT OF FL OR IDA 7

-JORC1E PRIETo

Pekhoner , ... /

vs. cASE No : 3D12 3 1

STATE Of FLDROA

PET LT_LQNE PA ~TD_R)SDEEDMA__BR lE F

ON REVIEW FRDM THE DISTR)CT COURT OF APPEALTH\RD DisTR\cT, sTATé of FLDR\DA .

JDRGrE PRlETO, Pro Se..F,D,o,c*(7/9723; Y†131

Columbia CorreckoncJ Inst.

RIGS.E.CorrecWons L0cg

Lese, CH3 , FL. 3202s

TABLE OF CONTE.NTS

Table of Citokions . . . . . . . . . . 3Stokment of the., Case and fo.cks . . . . . 4,5, toSummary of the, Argument . . . . . . . /o,7

-JurisdicMorcJ Stohesnent . . . . . . .'7Argument : . . . . . . . . . . . .8, q, to

The, Dscision of the.TM\PvD D\STR\cT CDURTOF APPEAL in this Cose THE Foilowice ques+¡on of

GPsEAT PUbLic, IMPORTANCE of these, c,osee

_Salow v. Stede@6 so 2d 1222 (5 DcA 2000)/

Se.ull v. Stoke-, sto9 So.2d 125 (Fla. 1990) j

EPPS v. S+cke , % / so. 2d 1206 (Flos 4 DCA 2006)

Rose v. S+cke- , t,o1 so. 2d I i e l (Flot .1992) /

tÑ v. S±cde , /,22 So.2d %2 (Floaqq3)

Lego v. S+cde ; 9'75 So. 2d & 13 ( Flot.3DcA 208)

Stak y, menride , 848 So.2d 28"/ (Fla 2003)

Uloctison v, Stcdc. , 932 so.2d 533 (Fla 3DcA 2a )

S3ck V. Gray , (,54 So.2d 552 (Fla.3DcA 1995 )

Beasure, v.S+cde- , 9 31 So.2d 263 (Fla3DCA 2co

CONCLUSlo, . . . . . . . . . . , . 10

CERT1F\CATE OF SERVicE. . . . . . . . I l

CERTIFICATE OF COMPllAMC-E . . . . . ()

<2

TABLE OF C \TATloNS

CASEs

Satou v Stok ,'7& b so. 2d 1122 (s ocA 2000)S'c.ull V. Gtche , 5to9 So.2d 125 (Hex.1940)E pps _v&te, , 94 i So. 2d 12Olo ( Fla ') DCA 226)

Rose v. Shte, , 601 so. 2d 11BI L Fla_ . 1492)i4uYV Strde._, to22 So.2d %2 L Flos. \¶93))_ngo v. Stå , 995 So.2d 1s13 (F\a 3DCA 2008)Shhv rncbride, , B% So.2d 2B7 C Floo 2003)

mornsoM V.Str¼, 932 So. 2d 533 (Flc .3DcA 2cob)

k_v._Cimg , &s4 So.2d 552 (Fla.3DCA 1995)_Pleo_sure _v.._stak ,931 so. 2d 2b3 l¥\c4.3DcA 2006)

_. C,onshhdionod Provisions ord .S¼+uks ___

AKC Y S 3(bX3) ELA . CoM5T (19BO) . . . . 7Sec3(on 51.105 FLA. STATUTE ()%5) . . .7

Steduk %2.04 0) ()%4) . . . . . . . .8,9Staduk R44, 279 (i) anel 944.2B (2) CA') (2005) . . 9

COURT RULES

F\a. R. APP. P. 9.o30 (cM2)(a) t iv) . . . . 7

Fla. R. APP. P. 9.210 (cd(2) . . . . . . . .) 1

°kedement 09% Cme and Fac,+s

On Govember 15,1993 ,¼¢ peAitioner as armsted

in Dode Coun+3 , FLot ida and chorged udh cdternpkd

Mitst degree rnurdec . On December % 1994 the pe+ition-ersigned a piea agreement tór\b 209ears sentence. in

exc»cnge for the peti4soners substantiod cissistance on

ihe. pending case aoplost Bentsy Fnuran , as a resultthol ¼¢. Stc4e notkt prosced theArst degree murderord ke- Possession of ofireorm dun'ng ¾e- comrmssion

oÞa felong used by his co-dekodart. On T)¼cch \, 19%

on evidenkorg hearing was held by ¼€-Court onboih ofte above. men¾oned mo¾ons . Qt ¾e c.onclusion of ¼eshearing on,e- moMer ihe-court denied pedi¾oners Rule.3,950 mo¼on arvd oconied the, stede's motion to enferce,rms o4 ux\¼n p\ect og reemeni . b4owever ; ous non acg -umenta¾ve post o¢¾e procedurcJ Wstory of¼isecce

35† must be-noied , on tnarch 12,19%,¾e- cowt in¾eaboue- rne&c improperty resenkrced %e peM¾oner

outside-¼e procedurcMime- \imk penú¾ed as held byour TLoridessupreme Court's opinion in, TYiCLog V.Stdt

549 so.2d 4,45Uo% CFloo 1992), when it vceeded ge_pet.

i+ioner's 20 years senknce-and rerimposed o \ift sen\ence.kkikoner wowd be pronbkd from@ìiing in¼eDistrict

Courtof Apeal and in ¾e- Lower Court relohng to

his conv ick ions ard sentences . ~ As thes re-sult7

The Pe+¡¼ner fi\ed to+hes Supreme, Cour+ of Florida.

on Thay , 28 , 2012 . The- peh¾orer submH4ed a valid per

+¡tion for WM of 14abeas Corpus in compliamL di¼ %e-

FioJ. Crirn. E °l.03o (cò B) as manifest oP injushce

on Tu\9 23, 2012. 89 order ,%e, Supreme, Czuct of -

F\orido trans('erred 4he- pe,¾on to ¼e- Circá†Cour+09 te- Eleventh Tucucia\ Ci'rcuit of Roridct for consid-

era¾on as o. rnoboo io CorrecHilegal se-n4eae fiied

pursuard to Fla. R.Crirn. P. 3 3000 tol On Nodernber ß,2012 the- St& filed o; response in weAower TribunaJ

to deny pe ¾orers mo½oo acd to sarctier him.The-

p¾½coer did not receive ¼¢ resporse un¾l Movember ¼,

2012. wNie prepanng a reply 4o 4he, stales response thepehhener receive:A Le- lower tribunods knod order deny-

irg ¼5 mohen, On November 2'7,2012;in which¼e Miml

order was fi\ed on November 15,2o12 rnereig ihree days

after the- s+cde Q¡ied Ws response . Now on Na/ember

27,200 pe¼honer ¾en on ct momechs nahce- prepared

a monon for re-hearing . On November 3o,2012 pe¾+ierer

mcúled his reply to be, Stedes resportse a\ong ü, o.monon for reheanng io ¼e. court's Enct) order . On Dec.-

ember \2,20n pehtioner received his repig io¼e-½ks

re-sponse bocK in ¾e rno'd wi¼ 4he- C\erRå stamp for

krg re@\ect;rg Dec4,2012 crossed out w\¾ no res-

ponse- 40 his repig .

1-4

PeQìoner %en E led Mo¾ce of Appeo I 40 %e lower

tribunal on December 13, 2012 by US. moál alorg with

sìakment oO Tudichl Acts to bes reMewed . Then on

December 5%,2orl peGár>ner receiNed by U.S. moll his

reheañrg redurned withod any recogáhon of fib'ng by

the clerld , i,e. no €Wrg stamp a pened . PeM+ioner

then Shed mo¼cn to suppoc+ notice of Appeal to 4he

Tid \RD Dis4r¡ct Court oÞ Appeo) on Decernber 2 t, 2012 bg

US. nv:ul . (see- e:xhibW il On Januárg i Li,'2Ol2 by U,s.

moùl peschoner recewed cou:rt order dismissing his

mohon for otpçml Eled on-January 8,20t3, /Jow on Tan,

10 ,2013 motion to redns+cde appeat was ¾\ed by US.

mail to The Third District Court of Appeal. On,/FFeb ruary Order †o denied was R\ed arò recewed

by pekitioner on Fe brvøry 2pa.(see e-xhibit 2)

..Summary olthe_Grgument

In 4his case the, Lowe1Triburn\ dengirg petitioners

pro se pekition for \4abeas Corpus relie9,procedurall9;the. moton was denied because †We- Pe:b¼oner had pre --

vioust_y been precAuded from ang Nings be9ere, ehher

%e +r iod court or ìhes appedlak court o@ìhis ~IudicicJ

Circuit unless re-viewed and signed by a mexnber i ngood stand(rg of the- Floridou Bar . see -Pr ieko v. Stode,990 so.2d 588 ( Eh .3d DcA 2008) -

/ i \

because oP oppelloke Siing nurnerous '3.800 (a) mobons

that deod+ wi+h 4he- issue of locl of depor+cMon nohce,

os weuos Rule.3.Bso motions raising the- same, argument.

The-Third Districkcourt of Appeal he.id upon the cour½

own mckion , i+ is ordered tho½ the- obove- s+gled appe:d

is hereb3 dismissed , see.Priedo v. S+cdel.3dDcA3 .

Under due process peki+ioner should be- odiowed

to Ne on objedon to %e strJe's re-sponse, ord sub-mit his own propcsed rep\g . The- Lower Court dec;ision

based on ¾e, be-\íe# ¥hod ¼e, peM+ìone;r cou\d not -

Show Cause Order, thok ¼e, decision o-ʼeThird -

District Court oP Appec) expressly onal oWrexdìg con%cts

wäh%e, princip6s of dues processs er ¼ese- reasons,

thod ½¡s cases is oÞ exceptional mportarte,%<t+ it isnecessary io rnainìcdn undbmü3 i n¼e Cour¼ decisèns.

The FLorida Supreme- Court hos discrebonarg

urisdicÁcn 40 rev ie w o decis ion oŸo- Diskic} Court

of Appeal +hod expressig and directig coreh'cks wAh a

decision of The- Supremes Court or ano¼er 'Dis+rîct --

Court of Appeal cn 4he, soxne pánt oÞ Lomw. Art.Y

s 3 (b) (3) Flot. C.or st. (\%o) , Fla. R. App. P. ct.03 o (a)(2)

(A) (. iv) see on 5'7. los FLa . Stode , (1985).

Arguenent

The oleei sion of the Third Distric+ Court of

Appe°l in this ese expressig and directig c,onpiickswith the- decision of this Cour t's in :

Salow Y Såtede ,%6 So.2ej 1222 (5 DeA 2000)

Scull v. lita, 5b9 So. Rd i 2.5 ( Fla. 1990)

E pps v. stak, q4 i So.Xc) 1206 (Fla.4 DCA 2006)Rose v. stoke, 601 So.2d i191 ( Fla. ¡qqz)

-Slak , 622 So.2d %1 ( Fla. ) R93)Lago v. Stak , 975 So.2d 6 13 (Fla. 3 DcA 2oog)

-Sìnk Y m'Paride, 8% Go.2d ze"/( Fla. 2003)

Jhorrison v.Sick, 932 So.2d 503 (FicGDCA 2006)Stok v. Grrat) , &H5 So.2d 552 ( Fla,3 DCA 199G)

ReasuœVS†cLk,93) So.2d 2b3 (Fla.3 DCA 2006')

upon the moniŸest injus€ce os to theüÌegal senknee imposed The- Supreme, 60uct of Florida

Profecig transPerred and ordered the PeMien to be-

C-onstrued as a veNcle, under F\a. R. Crim. p. s.goo (avmoson to curect illegal senkrœ.Thereis no +¡me, )¡m..

itokon nor is there successive, proh b ion tocorrectaniue3cJ senknce ,+

enstant crime wwch results in c manWest injushee,under the. stokutorg senkn 3ene,me, of 19B9 that

there- existed AQ oPPense, bg itself of,

to\

aìkmpkd îirs+ c\egree murderNn subsection 182.om0

1%9.Thus the mandaiorg serhencing low under Florida

Sta+uks 717.o4(0 cind 777.04 (4)(b) control the present

senknte as imposed ,

P£+i+(oner should have been afforded cvn opp-

octunifg to file a repig to the Stokes resporse.Pelit onersrepig and mohon for reheartrg were meanirvful and comp-

\ete, and not meteig colorab\e, or \\lusive , Lìnder due,

process peA'¾ener should be allowed to Pile an objech

ion to the staks Tesporse-.

y seperak order the- Lower Courts has denied

pekihon on bo\h procedaroJ and subs+arMve- cfounds,a\so has moved ìo erroneously sancfion 4he, Pe+i+ioners

meritorious claim in good fcé\b in his pursuit 0Fjushce.

A blabeas Corpus is a kgbrid motion ; it can be-

used i n boih ejvil or er mincJ proceedings . Pefikonerat no time, hos abused the proceduress in4his ins,

nor is or has sought to circumvent ang prohikšitionsbosed on pri or case- doedrine . The- Sicdt A4+n3. has

miseenstrued peki+ieners \/odid clodm by misospptjnjsanctions thod govern Privdous or mcJicious condud

in court proceedings . l%+itioner in good fai¾ and·-sound case les hos presenkd a sohd claim %ot

does not misappropHo, stoMes 6%4.279C!) and9%z BC 2 h'hì of Vla. s†cô·£205) Acê9avems Ra.

R.Crirw.p. 3.850 (m) as laid cJcúm. -

Due to ¼6 illegoJ senha which viokdesthe peE+iorers StrA and cons+î¼KoncJ Rig%s he- is

being held i lleopìì3 ard it is proper to raise 4his

funclamenta.1 error acceroßrg to Fla.R.Crim.P RO30(c0(3) pursuor½ to Art.Y ,serion 3 lb) (9) oÞ¾e

Fbor ide cons%käon .Pehtioner hereb3 p>eA¼¡oos this bìONORAbLE

COURT to remew ard re-solve- Se- ConÑict in 4hisinstance- b9 clues¾oning ¾es decisïon oM%edistricicourt ord orderte tr iod cour+ io grant all olherredieß as¾s Court orders and deernsjustandProP°T

£onclusion

his Coud has discresionorg jurisdic on toreview %e dec-¡áon below i ond the, Court should

exercise 4ho& jurisdi c½ion to consider %e- rnents

of 4he, peM¾oners arojument %od ¼eThird Distr ickCour t o¢ Appecd misinterprekd %is Court's previousru\(ngs in cases cited \Àexein .

Respeck€uil3 submi¼d ,

Torge Preb pro se,

CertiQcat, of Service

I hereby cer%P3 that a coç>3 o0 4his br'veŸ has

been furnished to : The ¾ng. Cven· ,1-lorvored»)e,

Rxmelex 3'o Tbondi ,The capitol , Tal iabassee, FL .32399 on %eAL.dag of Fe b rvary 2013. v fot US.rmil log pucirg 'N in 4he. hosnds of o Prison o©¿nJt>r rncü hhg .

Øer+(Meck cd Cornpbckno

I_ hereby cer+ ucd 4his brie complies wMthe fork requiremenis of Rwe 9·210 Cal (z) of ½eFlorida. Rwes of Apped procedure .

Torce Prielo ®*¿d79'723

Colurnbiot Corre4Mono

2Ro S.E. Correc.kúons LA3

Lo,@y ,FL 32025 C+2 00

EXfify

JORGE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

THIRD DISTRICT

JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2013

JANUARY 8, 2013

FELIX PRIETO, CASE NO.: 3D12-3419

Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s),

Vs.

LOWERTHE STATE OF FLORDIA TRIBUNAL NO. 93-38701

Appellee(s)/Respondent(s).

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that the

above styled appeal is hereby dismissed. See Prieto v. State,

990 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

WELLS, C.J., and CORTIÑAS and LOGUE, JJ., concur.

A

cle tAppe T ct

cc:Jorge Felix PrietoPamela Jo BondiHon. Antonio ArzolaHarvey Ruvin

la