Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Mitchell Stukel v. Florida

IFP petition · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, No. 4D2025-2683 · judgment November 20, 2025


Certiorari denied · October 19, 2026

Questions presented

  1. ) Whether or not Petitioner is being confined in prison illegally in violation of his Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

  2. ) Can the Florida Legislature consistent with Article X section 9 Florida Constitution retroactively supply parole jurisdiction through a newly created agency when the original parole statutes had been repealed and no saving clause to preserve their application.1

  3. ) If the sentencing Court lacked jurisdiction to impose punishment under F.S. 775.082(1) since jurisdiction was lost when the Florida Parole Commission was repealed in 1982 F.S. 947.16 (1) (e) and abolished in

  4. And specifically because at sentencing there was no parole agency to execute the sentence, is Petitioners sentence illegal under Rule 3.800(a).

  5. ) Does the Florida Commission on Offender Review (FCOR) have the right under Article 4 section 8 (c) to make parole decisions in cases of prisoners sentenced under F.S. 775.082 (1) such as this defendant without statutory authority at that time.

  6. ) Is parole eligibility, parole jurisdiction and parole authority governed by the law in effect at the time as the United States Supreme Court and Florida Courts holding states: Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (1981) Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433 (1997), Woldrop v. Dugger, 562 So. 2d 687 Fla. (1990).

  7. ) Is Petitioner’s sentence rendered non-executable and void because the mechanism “parole” was not functionally at the time of the conviction and causing the statute to be incomplete as purpose would have it?

  8. ) With the United States Supreme Court having final authority to determine meaning and application of those words of constitution which require interpretation to resolve judicial issues according to Article III.: Judicial Power Sec 1 Supreme Court and inferior courts, can it do so here.2 1 Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506, 514,19L, Ed 264 (1868) 2 Pennekamp v. Florida. 90 Led 1295, 328 U.S. 331 (1946) 8. Does the FCOR have statutory authority over parole eligibility inmates pre-1996?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Mitchell Stukel

For respondent
Celia A. Terenzio

Case

Subject area
Criminal Procedure (estimated from the questions presented, in the Supreme Court Database’s categories)

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Order
Order list, October 19, 2026 · Certiorari denied

Proceedings

  1. Oct 19 2026
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Oct 01 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/16/2026.
  3. Sep 24 2026
    Waiver of right of respondent Florida to respond filed.
  4. Apr 10 2026
    Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 5, 2026)