Preview
1
In the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit
In and for Martin County, State of Florida
s
Linda Michael # 0-889386
Petitioner, Case numver 21 -3 53 A
VS.
Ricky D. Dixon, Secretary Florida Department of Corrections (Custodian)
Thomas R. Bakkendahl, Successor State Attorney
Cynthia L. Cox Successor Chief Judge,
Respondent’s
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS COPRUS
FI. Const. Art. 1 section- 13 F.S.A. 79.01- RULE 1.630
THE PETITIONER, Linda Michael in pro se, requests the Court to direct the
Respondent's to discharge her from custody on the grounds she is ‘unlawfully
imprisoned’. Notarized Affidavit of the Petitioner [document attached] Pursuant to
West's F.S.A. section 92.50.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
State of FI lorida v. Linda Michael - Case Number 92-502-CFA Martin
County
November of 1992, the jury ‘acquitted’ the Petitioner of First-degree
Murder and
the proscribed penalty of 25 years to Life with Parole.
Page 1
The jury returned a guilty verdict-on a lesser included offense of Second-degree Murder
and proscribed a minimum maximum permitted penalty of 7-22 years. [document
attached]. The law at that time allowed the Judge to articulate his personal reasons to
enter a departure sentence of a maximum legal and constitutional limit of 40 years.
December 11, 1992, The Predecessor State Attorney out of retaliation, malice and in
bad faith punished the Petitioner for exercising her 5 and 6t amendment rights. The
State Attorney filed a ‘Notice’ seeking an unconstitutional, greater, excessive, and
disproportionate
life (aka) death by incarceration sentence. The State Attorney solicited
predecessor Judge Schack’s assistance and in concert did so knowingly, willingly, and
intentionally, conspired to invade the Constitutional rights of the Petitioner by falsely
imprisoning her against her will for the rest of her natural life without a valid sentencing
judgment. The Court had no authority nor jurisdiction to enter. An unconstitutional law is
a nullity and void and cannot be a legal cause for imprisonment.
Petitioner has established. on record ‘Official Criminal Misconduct’. F.S. 787.02 (1)(a) (2)
False Imprisonment, and F.S. 777.04 (2) (3) (4) Solicitation, Conspiracy. The
Respondents were not lawfully acting within their official and judicial duties.
JURISDICTION
FI. Const. Art. V section 5 (b) and F.S. 79.09 Exception to the general Habeas Corpus
can be found in the circuit courtin which the judgment was entered to challenge the
judgment on broader grounds.
Page 2
LEGAL CITATION
Groins v. McDonough, United States District Court Northern District Tallah
assee
Division February 6, 2008 2008 WL 384533 *4 F.S.A. 79.09 Florida law vests State
Supreme Court, District Courts of Appeal, and Circuit Courts with original concurr
ent
jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus. FLGonstArt. V (3) (b) (9) (4) (b) (3)
and
(5) (b). FI. Statute 79.01, F.R.A-P. 9.030, F.S. 79.09. Circuit Court jurisdiction to review
Habeas Corpus is limited. The Circuit Court of the County in which Petitioner is
incarcerated has jurisdiction to review the legality of the Prisoner, and release if shown
he or she is held is illegal or void. Leichtman v. Singletary, (Fourth District Court of
Appeal 1967) 674 So.2d. 799. Citing Janes v. Heidtman; (Third District Court of Appeal
1967) 272 So.2d. 799.
ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SENTENCES DEFINED .
Mancino v. State, (Florida Supreme Court 1998) 114 So.2d. at 433 ‘[A] sentence that
patently fails to comport with statutory or constitutional limits is by definition illegal.
ARGUMENT ONE
STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT
The Petitioner gave ‘Notice’ [documents attached] to the Respondents as Successor
State Attorney, and Chief Judge “that the Petitioner is ‘Falsely Imprisoned’ against her
will for the rest of her natural life under an unconstitutional law and without a valid
‘
sentencing judgment’. An unconstitutional law is a nullity and void and cannot be
a legal
cause of imprisonment. Further, the Petitioner is ‘wrongfully imprisoned’, under
a
Page 3
corrected/amended sentencing judgment would be void in excess.
Where the Petitioner
has completed a maximum legal and Constitutional limit of 40 years, and has
a non-
extinguishable protected liberty interest in due process and discharge.
1 The Respondents had an ethical duty to investigate and report their retired
predecessors on record official criminal misconduct to the appropriate agencies;
The Respondents had an official and judicial duty to conduct an investigation into
the Petitioners false and wrongful imprisonment claims, conduct hearings, modify
sentence, and discharge; ,
Judge Cynthia L. Cox failed to respond; )
State Attorneys Office response “We don not have a conviction review unit.” and
“| cannot assist you”.
See Petitioners reply letter to the State Attomeys office addressing their
erroneous response to the conviction review unit is enacted law. And the refusal
to assist is a refusal to release.
LEGAL CITATIONS
Jones v. District of Columbia, United States District Court of Columbia June 12, 2019
2019 WL 560341 *5 c. False Imprisonment. A refusal to release if the actor is under a
duty to release his refusal to do so with the intention of confi ining the other is sufficient
act to make him subject to liability for false imprisonment. Restatement (Second) Torts
section 137. Request can also establish False Imprisonment even if the Plaintiff initially
consented to the confinement. 895 F.2d. (DC Cir. 1990)
Page 4
McCurry v. Moore, United States District Court Northern District Tallahassee Division
242 F.Supp.2d.1157 at *1180 Where an offi cial has knowledge of a Prisone
rs problem
and official failed to act indicating that his or her response to the problem was.a
product
of ‘deliberate indifference’ to the Prisoners plight’ and ‘there exist a casual connect
ion
between the official’s response to the problem in the unjustified detention.
ARGUMENT TWO
STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT
Florida Statute 775.082 Penalties (3) (a) 1991 is Patently Unconstitutional’ it chilled the
Petitioners assertion of her 5 and 6 amendment constitutional tights to plead not
guilty and demand a trial by jury. By imposing a greater penalty of life (aka) death by
incarceration on a jury found lesser included offense of second-degree murder in
violation of the 8 amendment.
LEGAL CITATION
United Si tates v. Jackson, SCOTUS (1 968) 390 US 570 88 Sct 138 20 L.Ed.2d.138
*582 The inevitable effect of such a provision of course to discourage the assertion-of a
5th amendment right to plead not guilty, and the 6 amendment right to demand a trial
by jury, if the provision had no other effect than to chill the assertion of constitution
tights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them would be ‘patently
unconstitutional’.
Page 5
ARGUMENT THREE
STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT
Florida Statute F.S. 775.082 Penalties (3) (a) 1991The Florida law violates the
precepts
of justice that punishments be graduated and proportioned to the offense. L.W.O.P. is a
greater penalty on a lesser included offense violates the 8 amendment.
« LEGAL CITATION
Solem v. Helm, SCOTUS (1983) 463 US 277 103 S.Ct. 3001 77 L.Ed.2d. 637 **3022
Syllabus (b) The Constitutional principle of proportionality has been explicitly recognized
by this Court for over a century. In several cases the Court has applied this principle to
invalidate criminal sentences. Weems. v. United States, 217 US 349 30 S.Ct. 544 54
L.E.2d 793,Moreover this Courts cases have recognized explicitly that *278 prison
sentences are subject to proportionality analysis. *293 “Few would dispute that a
lesser included offense should not be punished more severely than the greater
offense”.
Weems id at 368 30 S.Ct. 551 “It is the precept of justice that punishment be graduated
and proportioned to the offense”.
Page 6
ARGUMENT FOUR
STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT-LEGAL CITATION
The Florida Supreme Court held F.S. 775.082 Penalties (3) (a) unconstitutional
imposing a greater penalty of L.W.O.P. on a lesser included offense of second-degree
murder. Under the 8! and 14" amendment the 2016 retroactive decision applies to the
Petitioner whom sustained the identical constitutional injuries; Further, the Florida
Supreme Court held F.S. 921.001 unconstitutional it denied juveniles individual
sentencing. The second decision does not apply to the Petitioner as an adult.
Landrum v. State, Florida Supreme Court (2016) June 9, 2016 192 So.3d. 459 Certiorari
jurisdiction on motion to correct an illegal sentence. *460 Our conclusion that Landrum’s
sentence is unconstitutional is also propelled by the “precept of justice that punishment
for a crime be graduated and proportioned to [the] offense”. Graham v. Florida,
SCOTUS (2010) 560 US 48,59 130 S.Ct. 2011 176 L.Ed.2d. 825 Upholding*461
Landrum’s sentence would violate this precept as a juvenile convicted of second-degree
murder would receive a harsher sentence than a juvenile convicted of first-degree
murder. *464 analysis under Art. 1 sect.17 the Fl. Const. this court is ‘required’ to
construe the prohibition against “crue! and unusual punishments’in conformity with
decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The Petitioner has established the 8
amendment proportionality comerstone of the Landrum id 460-461, 463-464 decision
was found in Graham id at 59 at 130 S.Ct. **2015 citing Weems v. United States id at
368 30 S.Ct. at 551. Noting Weems was an adult gin amendment proportionality case
as cited in Petitioner's habeas corpus.
Page 7
ARGUMENT FIVE
STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT
F.s. 775.082 Penalties (3) (a) 1991 Held patently unconstitutional. An unconstitutional
law is a nullity and void ab initio,and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment. Petitioner
sentencing judgment entered on December 11, 1992 by the Court lacked legal authority
and jurisdiction.
\
LEGAL CITATION
Montgomery v. Louisiana, SCOTUS (2016) 577 US 190 136 S.Ct. 418 193 Led.2d 599
see 577 US at 203 citing ExParte Siebold, 100 US 371 15 L.Ed. 77 (1880) In Siebold
However, The Petitioner attacked the judgments on the grounds that they had been
convicted under an unconstitutional statute. The Court explained “that if this position is
well taken it affects the foundation of the entire proceeding”’.id at 376 A conviction under
an unconstitutional law is not merely erroneous but is illegal and void, and cannot be a
legal cause of imprisonment”. But if the laws are unconstitutional the circuit court
acquired no jurisdiction of the cases id at 376-377. As discussed, the same logic
governs a challenge to the punishment that the constitution deprives States authority to
impose. Penry supra at 330 109 S.Ct. 2934. *2021 Siebold explained *TA]n
unconstitutional law is void and no law at all”.
Office of the Attorney General Dep: artmentof Legal Affairs v. Nationwide Pools, Inc.
April 3, 2019 (4th District Court of Appeals) 270 So.3d. 406 *409 [9] “[I]t is well
Page 8
established under Florida law that a judgment is void if based on a statute declared
unconstitutional’. Judgment based on illegally enacted statutes whose provisions violate
the constitution are voidable. Green v. State, 839 So.2d. 748, 752 (Fl 2 DCA 2003);
citing B.H. v. State, 645 So.2d. 987-993 (Fl 1994) Judgment would have been voidable
because rule 1.540 (b) (4) allows a court to vacate only void judgments.
Rule 1.540 was referenced in the Petitioner's letter dated 1-11-24 (document attached)
to successor Judge Cynthia L. Cox was noticed that predecessor Judge Larry Schack
(retired) entered a sentencing judgment without jurisdiction or authority is void ab initio.
Note successor judge Cynthia L. Cox failed to respond to Petitioner's letter.
ARGUMENT SIX
STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT
Petitioner's remedy is a Writ of Habeas Corpus for judicial review False Imprisonment
and Wrongful Imprisonment Claims and Unconstitutional Penalty Statute F.S. 775.082
(3) (a) 1991.
LEGAL CITATION .
Anglin v. Mayo, Florida Supreme Court July 31, 1956 80 So.2d. 918 *920 If it appears to
a court of competent jurisdiction that a man is illegally restrained of his liberty it is the
responsibility of the court to brush aside formal technicalities and issue such appropriate
orders as will do justice. *922 Appellant shall be immediately presented to the circuit
court of Franklin County for proper and legal resentencing...if it appellant already
served the maximum time proscribed by law be will be discharged from custody.
Page 9
Wherefore, the Petitioner request this honorable court to direct the Respondents to
discharge her from custody.
Linda Michael 478009 (FDOC #0-889386)
M.B.C.C. C3B-120
29501 Kickapoo Road '
McLoud, Ok 74851
| HEREBY CERTIFY a copy of this instrument was placed in the hands of an O.D.0.C.
official > be logged and sent by U.S.P.S. this 28t day of March 2024.
inda Michael, Petitioner in pro se
Page 10
CERTIFICATE oF SERVICE
| HEREBY CERTIFY, A copy of the foregoing instrument was sent by U.S.P.S. to the
office of the State Attorney, 100 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 400, Stuart Florida 34994 this 28!"
day of March, 2024.
la Michael 478009 (FDOC #0-889386)
M.B.C.C. C3B-120
29501 Kickapoo Road
McLoud, Ok. 74851
eae
HABEAS CORPUS DOCUMENTS
March 28, 2024 Notarized Affidavit of Linda Michael
Pre-sentence Investigation Report dated December 7, 1992
recommending a permitted minimum maximum sentence of
7-22 years.
December 11, 1992 certified copy of the sentencing
judgment void ab initio entering an unconstitutional life
sentence.
October 25, 2023 Petitioner's second follow up letter to
successor State Attorney dated on February 23, 2023. CC:
to Paul Petillio Public Defender.
January 11, 2024 Petitioner's third certified letter to
successor State Attorney, and letter to successor judge .
Cynthis L. Cox.
January 18, 2024 State Attorney’s response. Successor
judge Cynthia L. Cox-did not respond.
Petitioner's reply to the State Attorney’s Office (attached) to
Successor judge Cynthis L. Cox letter.
NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT.OF LINDA MICHAEL
THE Affiant Linda Michael, being duly sworn before me Mrs. Carder a Notary
Public authorized by the laws of Oklahoma in Pottawattomie County, to
administer oaths, deposes and says that the Affiant Linda Michael is personally
known by me, and has presented her O.D.O.C. picture identifi ication tag D.O.C. #
478008 on this 28* day of March, 2024.
The Affiant states under oath
4 The Affiant is in custody under the jurisdiction of the State of Florida
housed in Oklahoma pursuant to an I.C.C. agreement for hardship.
Affiant under the decisions rendered by the United States Supreme
Court and the Florida Supreme.Court held Affiant’s-sentence was
imposed under an unconstitutional penalty statute F.S. 775:087 (3)(a)
1991. The Affiant is falsely imprisoned against her will for the rest of
her natural life under a sentencing judgment void ab initio
Affiant is also wrongfully imprisoned under and amended/corrected
sentencing judgment void in excess where the Affiant has already
completed a maximum legal and constitutional limit of 40 years
The Affiant has a non-extinguishable protected liberty interest in
release and lawfully paid-her debt to society:
Affiant attest the Statement of facts contained in her Habeas Corpus.
are true and supported by the record.
hve Dhetad
(Gnda Michael 0-880386 Affiant
ty,
ss
Ss AR,
abCheodo
WO
er
Zz
Condos # 24003087
EXP. 03/05/28
Notary Public
Wx: Pua’. ss
Ns
My Commission Expires: 2B Is /22028 “oy“Meer
Case 4:07-cv-00545 WS-W
CS Document 42 ~-Filed.02 eee
/08/08Page 11 of 42
&§>
: 2- S~
=¢ Rule 3.933 G) 1 ww
SENTENCING GUIBELIN, ES
‘Ooste: Number 7 2 Additionsi Dockat Numb SCO: RESHEET
gzys 39: -C¥A ers = ~— == -
RE plas Ni me Fir: st) t
|
Yone 3. OBTS Number
10002853380 4. Category:
ie. ZAPo, & Date of Bink 2S 0203 o4 as 0657 aq, ‘Gs
LINDA 2 Rex
7/28/55 - OMOP/O 5 ew O other [8Breb Ooo Ia. Cowiy >
l
38 Seclencing 42, Date of Offense [ Be
iar
Me ttin--
|
AREY SCBACK i
Ee S/N4 $394 IZ O Ples 2 Tet 3. DOCRaaber
Se
2S
oe
885386 eee
ES : -
a as
ee i PROMARY OFFENSE AT CONV - Forrs
ICTION é
24 2 Counts Degree Starute Description
AS 1 EL EPBL 782.04(2)
Re a zie SECOND DEGREE HURDER
S Il. ADDIT] JONALOOFF
WITH A -150
oS ee se a5 es Couns
R ENSES AT CONVICTION
a FelBfisd Degree Stouns ve
Se ao Dikeipdes
eee
ve a a
ER
wile
Sa =
me we
wee
ee
Loe {Continue on Separate Page) : i
eae
Il. A. PRIOR RECORD
aS Covats Feticd Degree Stattte Deetpias
AE Se
Beeme ie
se
-o.. a.
re BH
f= =r
aeEROS —
ws
Babys (Continue on Separate Fase) ss
=Se Ia, ~
=ee UI. “B. SAME CATEGORY PRIORS (eatep3 oci
3 Sead es
6 oaks -
OLB,
Fos aL PRIOR DUI CONvVictTions, (category L
only} --
m™ Leoat STA
3 TUS; AT me
ihc”
OF OFFENSE
= — G) 29 resirictio: Bkplonsmiae .
V.
—
VICTIMInvuRY mm
Betas Namber of Scovécbte Victis Rejastes
Desereof'
-
_o Bone cx no comtact
slight oresatect but ua penetrati
ee on
wodeatra
penete
tration
aRaeoS Scvere or death
02s
ax
£ESES 2i-
aie RECODDMENDZ) TOTAL E PORTS 17:
& CE (i217)
FOTALSES PERMITTED SENTENCE 27
LreR aw 222
a REASONS. fe Ra f— ws od
JUBGE
Pree
isco
fs
PO oe STR Stay
25, a Se eSee ae
a SSSRte Eman
eiaee SH sare PRICES SF
SY Pee ae GES
FETs Se a Se
Ee at 3
oS LESSea Ger wa ASE
Sy tae
urs es Be
OF. Whe, Cor Fie = Grorn.Sentencins: Guide Ss eres
lines Comfodon + SomanSe
es aoe
Fvurnre A - 78KO 996 pega
i
| Cas
ase 4:07-cv- -00545-WS-WCS ‘Document sipdonmiles Page 28 of 42
J2-CFA
oes [POlek:
e
Lo
pe ee cee
ASSESSMENT. & Ry EC OMMENDATIO
= N
= —
tecommended Disposition and Reason:
The sen tencing Guidelines recommends 12_-
& Permitted Range of 7 -39 yeare with
+> 22
incarceration. +yearsThis offenze elso carries a minimum
mandatory of 3 years incarceration.
sentenced
This Department recomsends that the defendant be
withii nm the Sentencing Guidelines.
.
Restitution: no YES x {Specily amount,
$8,500,09 payable name, address, and how
to Kenn. eth Johnaten Estate, 13710 SW 26th
payable)
33426 Avenue, Boynton Beach, Florida
00.00 payable to Jennifer Johnston 1310 SW 26th Avenue Boyaton Beach Florida 33426
00.00 payable So Michael Jonnsten, i ig sw (28th Avenue, Boynton Seach, Florida 23426.
Ea2 ronment to Which Offe:ender Highs Return or Be Sent: Florida Department of Corrections
Resources Avai lable to Assist this Particular Offender:
Corrections xe sources. A Florida Department o eé
Alternative *
Recommended Dis: itions Lif Any}: None-
a
Date Dictated —
12/2Z{8Z Typed 12/2/92 By gc
+
=: ~ == oo
i hereby cercity that the abov
e digittrue and correct to the
and verified where reasonably best of my knowledge and
possible. beiies
DEPAR’en P OF CORRECTIONS
Loy
By, Qa 112-4T-F2
Ted sek croI / Date
Approved By: DOI L) Lg ih Z Lala 7/95 i
-~ Probation Officer Thomas Mark, eCPs Il Dave e
— ,
The Presentence a ’
Investigation i 8 NO& a public
as specified record and ie availabie
{n Rule 3.712 of only to those persons
sente the Florida Rules of Criminal
1g, portiong of, the report Procedure, Following
document shail cenatitute the ba: sic classLe. ication and
of tbe ‘Departm ent evaluation
—. 2 of Co. rrections as specified in°921. 231 Florida Statutes
Disposition:
-
GF
a“
we
a ¢
-
9 e5 0 a
Eq
_ e
ge eebars 30002 F/3.
NCE
SENTE
Court
{As 10
bafora
us |
ntbe,in pereonatly
_ The DefenBdaajudies! tiGed gully herein, asomay;
rt
sre the Cou on mf
by his
en th e haary
wn, ha g thous not be sentenced
oA bf d to ag
being sCfho
ae 68, En to be
,
hi
i Sd by tase
Deng the Count
nlg d oa.
und! i sanity
i ton af
nvi
ne pirbnaty
end the Cou
(Check ane} D-
thsa on ta Ootor
no rezertence Smared a judemacd in ths case
Rane
ne
C and tign/| tra!
hsving subseq
uentty thei on Probe on/CCoommmeuunntyty Con
1! Probati
COURT inge
TUS THE SENTENCE OF THE
paye = py
G Tha Ostendar 2 i .
Preview
1 In the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit In and for Martin County, State of Florida s Linda Michael # 0-889386 Petitioner, Case numver 21 -3 53 A VS. Ricky D. Dixon, Secretary Florida Department of Corrections (Custodian) Thomas R. Bakkendahl, Successor State Attorney Cynthia L. Cox Successor Chief Judge, Respondent’s PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS COPRUS FI. Const. Art. 1 section- 13 F.S.A. 79.01- RULE 1.630 THE PETITIONER, Linda Michael in pro se, requests the Court to direct the Respondent's to discharge her from custody on the grounds she is ‘unlawfully imprisoned’. Notarized Affidavit of the Petitioner [document attached] Pursuant to West's F.S.A. section 92.50. STATEMENT OF FACTS State of FI lorida v. Linda Michael - Case Number 92-502-CFA Martin County November of 1992, the jury ‘acquitted’ the Petitioner of First-degree Murder and the proscribed penalty of 25 years to Life with Parole. Page 1 The jury returned a guilty verdict-on a lesser included offense of Second-degree Murder and proscribed a minimum maximum permitted penalty of 7-22 years. [document attached]. The law at that time allowed the Judge to articulate his personal reasons to enter a departure sentence of a maximum legal and constitutional limit of 40 years. December 11, 1992, The Predecessor State Attorney out of retaliation, malice and in bad faith punished the Petitioner for exercising her 5 and 6t amendment rights. The State Attorney filed a ‘Notice’ seeking an unconstitutional, greater, excessive, and disproportionate life (aka) death by incarceration sentence. The State Attorney solicited predecessor Judge Schack’s assistance and in concert did so knowingly, willingly, and intentionally, conspired to invade the Constitutional rights of the Petitioner by falsely imprisoning her against her will for the rest of her natural life without a valid sentencing judgment. The Court had no authority nor jurisdiction to enter. An unconstitutional law is a nullity and void and cannot be a legal cause for imprisonment. Petitioner has established. on record ‘Official Criminal Misconduct’. F.S. 787.02 (1)(a) (2) False Imprisonment, and F.S. 777.04 (2) (3) (4) Solicitation, Conspiracy. The Respondents were not lawfully acting within their official and judicial duties. JURISDICTION FI. Const. Art. V section 5 (b) and F.S. 79.09 Exception to the general Habeas Corpus can be found in the circuit courtin which the judgment was entered to challenge the judgment on broader grounds. Page 2 LEGAL CITATION Groins v. McDonough, United States District Court Northern District Tallah assee Division February 6, 2008 2008 WL 384533 *4 F.S.A. 79.09 Florida law vests State Supreme Court, District Courts of Appeal, and Circuit Courts with original concurr ent jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus. FLGonstArt. V (3) (b) (9) (4) (b) (3) and (5) (b). FI. Statute 79.01, F.R.A-P. 9.030, F.S. 79.09. Circuit Court jurisdiction to review Habeas Corpus is limited. The Circuit Court of the County in which Petitioner is incarcerated has jurisdiction to review the legality of the Prisoner, and release if shown he or she is held is illegal or void. Leichtman v. Singletary, (Fourth District Court of Appeal 1967) 674 So.2d. 799. Citing Janes v. Heidtman; (Third District Court of Appeal 1967) 272 So.2d. 799. ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SENTENCES DEFINED . Mancino v. State, (Florida Supreme Court 1998) 114 So.2d. at 433 ‘[A] sentence that patently fails to comport with statutory or constitutional limits is by definition illegal. ARGUMENT ONE STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT The Petitioner gave ‘Notice’ [documents attached] to the Respondents as Successor State Attorney, and Chief Judge “that the Petitioner is ‘Falsely Imprisoned’ against her will for the rest of her natural life under an unconstitutional law and without a valid ‘ sentencing judgment’. An unconstitutional law is a nullity and void and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment. Further, the Petitioner is ‘wrongfully imprisoned’, under a Page 3 corrected/amended sentencing judgment would be void in excess. Where the Petitioner has completed a maximum legal and Constitutional limit of 40 years, and has a non- extinguishable protected liberty interest in due process and discharge. 1 The Respondents had an ethical duty to investigate and report their retired predecessors on record official criminal misconduct to the appropriate agencies; The Respondents had an official and judicial duty to conduct an investigation into the Petitioners false and wrongful imprisonment claims, conduct hearings, modify sentence, and discharge; , Judge Cynthia L. Cox failed to respond; ) State Attorneys Office response “We don not have a conviction review unit.” and “| cannot assist you”. See Petitioners reply letter to the State Attomeys office addressing their erroneous response to the conviction review unit is enacted law. And the refusal to assist is a refusal to release. LEGAL CITATIONS Jones v. District of Columbia, United States District Court of Columbia June 12, 2019 2019 WL 560341 *5 c. False Imprisonment. A refusal to release if the actor is under a duty to release his refusal to do so with the intention of confi ining the other is sufficient act to make him subject to liability for false imprisonment. Restatement (Second) Torts section 137. Request can also establish False Imprisonment even if the Plaintiff initially consented to the confinement. 895 F.2d. (DC Cir. 1990) Page 4 McCurry v. Moore, United States District Court Northern District Tallahassee Division 242 F.Supp.2d.1157 at *1180 Where an offi cial has knowledge of a Prisone rs problem and official failed to act indicating that his or her response to the problem was.a product of ‘deliberate indifference’ to the Prisoners plight’ and ‘there exist a casual connect ion between the official’s response to the problem in the unjustified detention. ARGUMENT TWO STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT Florida Statute 775.082 Penalties (3) (a) 1991 is Patently Unconstitutional’ it chilled the Petitioners assertion of her 5 and 6 amendment constitutional tights to plead not guilty and demand a trial by jury. By imposing a greater penalty of life (aka) death by incarceration on a jury found lesser included offense of second-degree murder in violation of the 8 amendment. LEGAL CITATION United Si tates v. Jackson, SCOTUS (1 968) 390 US 570 88 Sct 138 20 L.Ed.2d.138 *582 The inevitable effect of such a provision of course to discourage the assertion-of a 5th amendment right to plead not guilty, and the 6 amendment right to demand a trial by jury, if the provision had no other effect than to chill the assertion of constitution tights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them would be ‘patently unconstitutional’. Page 5 ARGUMENT THREE STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT Florida Statute F.S. 775.082 Penalties (3) (a) 1991The Florida law violates the precepts of justice that punishments be graduated and proportioned to the offense. L.W.O.P. is a greater penalty on a lesser included offense violates the 8 amendment. « LEGAL CITATION Solem v. Helm, SCOTUS (1983) 463 US 277 103 S.Ct. 3001 77 L.Ed.2d. 637 **3022 Syllabus (b) The Constitutional principle of proportionality has been explicitly recognized by this Court for over a century. In several cases the Court has applied this principle to invalidate criminal sentences. Weems. v. United States, 217 US 349 30 S.Ct. 544 54 L.E.2d 793,Moreover this Courts cases have recognized explicitly that *278 prison sentences are subject to proportionality analysis. *293 “Few would dispute that a lesser included offense should not be punished more severely than the greater offense”. Weems id at 368 30 S.Ct. 551 “It is the precept of justice that punishment be graduated and proportioned to the offense”. Page 6 ARGUMENT FOUR STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT-LEGAL CITATION The Florida Supreme Court held F.S. 775.082 Penalties (3) (a) unconstitutional imposing a greater penalty of L.W.O.P. on a lesser included offense of second-degree murder. Under the 8! and 14" amendment the 2016 retroactive decision applies to the Petitioner whom sustained the identical constitutional injuries; Further, the Florida Supreme Court held F.S. 921.001 unconstitutional it denied juveniles individual sentencing. The second decision does not apply to the Petitioner as an adult. Landrum v. State, Florida Supreme Court (2016) June 9, 2016 192 So.3d. 459 Certiorari jurisdiction on motion to correct an illegal sentence. *460 Our conclusion that Landrum’s sentence is unconstitutional is also propelled by the “precept of justice that punishment for a crime be graduated and proportioned to [the] offense”. Graham v. Florida, SCOTUS (2010) 560 US 48,59 130 S.Ct. 2011 176 L.Ed.2d. 825 Upholding*461 Landrum’s sentence would violate this precept as a juvenile convicted of second-degree murder would receive a harsher sentence than a juvenile convicted of first-degree murder. *464 analysis under Art. 1 sect.17 the Fl. Const. this court is ‘required’ to construe the prohibition against “crue! and unusual punishments’in conformity with decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The Petitioner has established the 8 amendment proportionality comerstone of the Landrum id 460-461, 463-464 decision was found in Graham id at 59 at 130 S.Ct. **2015 citing Weems v. United States id at 368 30 S.Ct. at 551. Noting Weems was an adult gin amendment proportionality case as cited in Petitioner's habeas corpus. Page 7 ARGUMENT FIVE STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT F.s. 775.082 Penalties (3) (a) 1991 Held patently unconstitutional. An unconstitutional law is a nullity and void ab initio,and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment. Petitioner sentencing judgment entered on December 11, 1992 by the Court lacked legal authority and jurisdiction. \ LEGAL CITATION Montgomery v. Louisiana, SCOTUS (2016) 577 US 190 136 S.Ct. 418 193 Led.2d 599 see 577 US at 203 citing ExParte Siebold, 100 US 371 15 L.Ed. 77 (1880) In Siebold However, The Petitioner attacked the judgments on the grounds that they had been convicted under an unconstitutional statute. The Court explained “that if this position is well taken it affects the foundation of the entire proceeding”’.id at 376 A conviction under an unconstitutional law is not merely erroneous but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment”. But if the laws are unconstitutional the circuit court acquired no jurisdiction of the cases id at 376-377. As discussed, the same logic governs a challenge to the punishment that the constitution deprives States authority to impose. Penry supra at 330 109 S.Ct. 2934. *2021 Siebold explained *TA]n unconstitutional law is void and no law at all”. Office of the Attorney General Dep: artmentof Legal Affairs v. Nationwide Pools, Inc. April 3, 2019 (4th District Court of Appeals) 270 So.3d. 406 *409 [9] “[I]t is well Page 8 established under Florida law that a judgment is void if based on a statute declared unconstitutional’. Judgment based on illegally enacted statutes whose provisions violate the constitution are voidable. Green v. State, 839 So.2d. 748, 752 (Fl 2 DCA 2003); citing B.H. v. State, 645 So.2d. 987-993 (Fl 1994) Judgment would have been voidable because rule 1.540 (b) (4) allows a court to vacate only void judgments. Rule 1.540 was referenced in the Petitioner's letter dated 1-11-24 (document attached) to successor Judge Cynthia L. Cox was noticed that predecessor Judge Larry Schack (retired) entered a sentencing judgment without jurisdiction or authority is void ab initio. Note successor judge Cynthia L. Cox failed to respond to Petitioner's letter. ARGUMENT SIX STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT Petitioner's remedy is a Writ of Habeas Corpus for judicial review False Imprisonment and Wrongful Imprisonment Claims and Unconstitutional Penalty Statute F.S. 775.082 (3) (a) 1991. LEGAL CITATION . Anglin v. Mayo, Florida Supreme Court July 31, 1956 80 So.2d. 918 *920 If it appears to a court of competent jurisdiction that a man is illegally restrained of his liberty it is the responsibility of the court to brush aside formal technicalities and issue such appropriate orders as will do justice. *922 Appellant shall be immediately presented to the circuit court of Franklin County for proper and legal resentencing...if it appellant already served the maximum time proscribed by law be will be discharged from custody. Page 9 Wherefore, the Petitioner request this honorable court to direct the Respondents to discharge her from custody. Linda Michael 478009 (FDOC #0-889386) M.B.C.C. C3B-120 29501 Kickapoo Road ' McLoud, Ok 74851 | HEREBY CERTIFY a copy of this instrument was placed in the hands of an O.D.0.C. official > be logged and sent by U.S.P.S. this 28t day of March 2024. inda Michael, Petitioner in pro se Page 10 CERTIFICATE oF SERVICE | HEREBY CERTIFY, A copy of the foregoing instrument was sent by U.S.P.S. to the office of the State Attorney, 100 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 400, Stuart Florida 34994 this 28!" day of March, 2024. la Michael 478009 (FDOC #0-889386) M.B.C.C. C3B-120 29501 Kickapoo Road McLoud, Ok. 74851 eae HABEAS CORPUS DOCUMENTS March 28, 2024 Notarized Affidavit of Linda Michael Pre-sentence Investigation Report dated December 7, 1992 recommending a permitted minimum maximum sentence of 7-22 years. December 11, 1992 certified copy of the sentencing judgment void ab initio entering an unconstitutional life sentence. October 25, 2023 Petitioner's second follow up letter to successor State Attorney dated on February 23, 2023. CC: to Paul Petillio Public Defender. January 11, 2024 Petitioner's third certified letter to successor State Attorney, and letter to successor judge . Cynthis L. Cox. January 18, 2024 State Attorney’s response. Successor judge Cynthia L. Cox-did not respond. Petitioner's reply to the State Attorney’s Office (attached) to Successor judge Cynthis L. Cox letter. NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT.OF LINDA MICHAEL THE Affiant Linda Michael, being duly sworn before me Mrs. Carder a Notary Public authorized by the laws of Oklahoma in Pottawattomie County, to administer oaths, deposes and says that the Affiant Linda Michael is personally known by me, and has presented her O.D.O.C. picture identifi ication tag D.O.C. # 478008 on this 28* day of March, 2024. The Affiant states under oath 4 The Affiant is in custody under the jurisdiction of the State of Florida housed in Oklahoma pursuant to an I.C.C. agreement for hardship. Affiant under the decisions rendered by the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme.Court held Affiant’s-sentence was imposed under an unconstitutional penalty statute F.S. 775:087 (3)(a) 1991. The Affiant is falsely imprisoned against her will for the rest of her natural life under a sentencing judgment void ab initio Affiant is also wrongfully imprisoned under and amended/corrected sentencing judgment void in excess where the Affiant has already completed a maximum legal and constitutional limit of 40 years The Affiant has a non-extinguishable protected liberty interest in release and lawfully paid-her debt to society: Affiant attest the Statement of facts contained in her Habeas Corpus. are true and supported by the record. hve Dhetad (Gnda Michael 0-880386 Affiant ty, ss Ss AR, abCheodo WO er Zz Condos # 24003087 EXP. 03/05/28 Notary Public Wx: Pua’. ss Ns My Commission Expires: 2B Is /22028 “oy“Meer Case 4:07-cv-00545 WS-W CS Document 42 ~-Filed.02 eee /08/08Page 11 of 42 &§> : 2- S~ =¢ Rule 3.933 G) 1 ww SENTENCING GUIBELIN, ES ‘Ooste: Number 7 2 Additionsi Dockat Numb SCO: RESHEET gzys 39: -C¥A ers = ~— == - RE plas Ni me Fir: st) t | Yone 3. OBTS Number 10002853380 4. Category: ie. ZAPo, & Date of Bink 2S 0203 o4 as 0657 aq, ‘Gs LINDA 2 Rex 7/28/55 - OMOP/O 5 ew O other [8Breb Ooo Ia. Cowiy > l 38 Seclencing 42, Date of Offense [ Be iar Me ttin-- | AREY SCBACK i Ee S/N4 $394 IZ O Ples 2 Tet 3. DOCRaaber Se 2S oe 885386 eee ES : - a as ee i PROMARY OFFENSE AT CONV - Forrs ICTION é 24 2 Counts Degree Starute Description AS 1 EL EPBL 782.04(2) Re a zie SECOND DEGREE HURDER S Il. ADDIT] JONALOOFF WITH A -150 oS ee se a5 es Couns R ENSES AT CONVICTION a FelBfisd Degree Stouns ve Se ao Dikeipdes eee ve a a ER wile Sa = me we wee ee Loe {Continue on Separate Page) : i eae Il. A. PRIOR RECORD aS Covats Feticd Degree Stattte Deetpias AE Se Beeme ie se -o.. a. re BH f= =r aeEROS — ws Babys (Continue on Separate Fase) ss =Se Ia, ~ =ee UI. “B. SAME CATEGORY PRIORS (eatep3 oci 3 Sead es 6 oaks - OLB, Fos aL PRIOR DUI CONvVictTions, (category L only} -- m™ Leoat STA 3 TUS; AT me ihc” OF OFFENSE = — G) 29 resirictio: Bkplonsmiae . V. — VICTIMInvuRY mm Betas Namber of Scovécbte Victis Rejastes Desereof' - _o Bone cx no comtact slight oresatect but ua penetrati ee on wodeatra penete tration aRaeoS Scvere or death 02s ax £ESES 2i- aie RECODDMENDZ) TOTAL E PORTS 17: & CE (i217) FOTALSES PERMITTED SENTENCE 27 LreR aw 222 a REASONS. fe Ra f— ws od JUBGE Pree isco fs PO oe STR Stay 25, a Se eSee ae a SSSRte Eman eiaee SH sare PRICES SF SY Pee ae GES FETs Se a Se Ee at 3 oS LESSea Ger wa ASE Sy tae urs es Be OF. Whe, Cor Fie = Grorn.Sentencins: Guide Ss eres lines Comfodon + SomanSe es aoe Fvurnre A - 78KO 996 pega i | Cas ase 4:07-cv- -00545-WS-WCS ‘Document sipdonmiles Page 28 of 42 J2-CFA oes [POlek: e Lo pe ee cee ASSESSMENT. & Ry EC OMMENDATIO = N = — tecommended Disposition and Reason: The sen tencing Guidelines recommends 12_- & Permitted Range of 7 -39 yeare with +> 22 incarceration. +yearsThis offenze elso carries a minimum mandatory of 3 years incarceration. sentenced This Department recomsends that the defendant be withii nm the Sentencing Guidelines. . Restitution: no YES x {Specily amount, $8,500,09 payable name, address, and how to Kenn. eth Johnaten Estate, 13710 SW 26th payable) 33426 Avenue, Boynton Beach, Florida 00.00 payable to Jennifer Johnston 1310 SW 26th Avenue Boyaton Beach Florida 33426 00.00 payable So Michael Jonnsten, i ig sw (28th Avenue, Boynton Seach, Florida 23426. Ea2 ronment to Which Offe:ender Highs Return or Be Sent: Florida Department of Corrections Resources Avai lable to Assist this Particular Offender: Corrections xe sources. A Florida Department o eé Alternative * Recommended Dis: itions Lif Any}: None- a Date Dictated — 12/2Z{8Z Typed 12/2/92 By gc + =: ~ == oo i hereby cercity that the abov e digittrue and correct to the and verified where reasonably best of my knowledge and possible. beiies DEPAR’en P OF CORRECTIONS Loy By, Qa 112-4T-F2 Ted sek croI / Date Approved By: DOI L) Lg ih Z Lala 7/95 i -~ Probation Officer Thomas Mark, eCPs Il Dave e — , The Presentence a ’ Investigation i 8 NO& a public as specified record and ie availabie {n Rule 3.712 of only to those persons sente the Florida Rules of Criminal 1g, portiong of, the report Procedure, Following document shail cenatitute the ba: sic classLe. ication and of tbe ‘Departm ent evaluation —. 2 of Co. rrections as specified in°921. 231 Florida Statutes Disposition: - GF a“ we a ¢ - 9 e5 0 a Eq _ e ge eebars 30002 F/3. NCE SENTE Court {As 10 bafora us | ntbe,in pereonatly _ The DefenBdaajudies! tiGed gully herein, asomay; rt sre the Cou on mf by his en th e haary wn, ha g thous not be sentenced oA bf d to ag being sCfho ae 68, En to be , hi i Sd by tase Deng the Count nlg d oa. und! i sanity i ton af nvi ne pirbnaty end the Cou (Check ane} D- thsa on ta Ootor no rezertence Smared a judemacd in ths case Rane ne C and tign/| tra! hsving subseq uentty thei on Probe on/CCoommmeuunntyty Con 1! Probati COURT inge TUS THE SENTENCE OF THE paye = py G Tha Ostendar 2 i .