In Re Rexford Tweed

V > V.7(rna8e '20/12/12 A61D011013714 120707 '20/12/12 QUESTION ONE There exists exceptional circumstances of a United States Constitutional magnitude, wherein, based on substantive United States Supreme and other Federal Courts findings and dicta, the life portion of Florida Capital Criminal sentencing statute §775.082 (1) and (6) (1987) is an “indeterminate” prison sentence and was created by the Florida Legislature in direct CONFLICT with the Florida Constitution Article I, Section 17, that “forbids” indefinite prison sentences. In this habeas corpus cause of action, indefinite and indeterminate are synonymous. This legal fact, in accordance with this Court in Smiley v Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 368 (1932), is in direct CONFLICT with the Constitution of the United States. This creates a habeas corpus constitutional action as to whether the life portion of Florida sentencing statute §775.082 (1) and (6) (1987), to which Petitioner [and approximately 4,000 other current Florida prisoners are incarcerated], is unconstitutional under the United States Constitution and whether Petitioner is confined in the State of Florida in direct violation of the laws and Constitution of the United States. 1 4 inn /4A a r\ * a *r\ a-t a-?