No.
`
`Legal Mail
`Received
`DEC 202017
`Dade C.I.
`Ak
`
`
`
`IN THE
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`ARNALDO MARTINEZ - PETITIONER
`(Your Name)
`
`VS.
`
`JULIE L. JONES, etc. - RESPONDENT(S)
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
`
`REC - :\
`JAN 3 - 2018
`OF THE
`COU
`
`FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
`(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`ARNALDO MARTINEZ
`(Your Name)
`
`DADE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
`190SW 377TH STREET /_C2-131-S
`FLORIDA CITY, FL 33034-0530
`(Address)
`
`UNKNOWN
`(Phone Number)
`
`(4
`
`
`
`Legal Mail
`Received
`DEC 202017
`Dade C.I.
`Ak
`
`
`
`IN THE
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`ARNALDO MARTINEZ - PETITIONER
`(Your Name)
`
`VS.
`
`JULIE L. JONES, etc. - RESPONDENT(S)
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
`
`REC - :\
`JAN 3 - 2018
`OF THE
`COU
`
`FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
`(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`ARNALDO MARTINEZ
`(Your Name)
`
`DADE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
`190SW 377TH STREET /_C2-131-S
`FLORIDA CITY, FL 33034-0530
`(Address)
`
`UNKNOWN
`(Phone Number)
`
`(4
`
`
`
`I.
`
`'.
`
`1.
`
`QUESTION(S) PRESENTED
`
`WHETHER TRIAL COURT ABUSED THEIR AUTHORITY BY REFUSING
`TO ADDRESS AND OR RESOLVE PETITIONER CLAIM?
`
`WHETHER TRIAL COURT ABUSED THEIR AUTHORITY BY REFUSING
`TO ATTACH A PORTION OF THE RECORD TO REFUTE PETITIONER
`CLAIM?
`
`WHETHER TRIAL COURT ABUSED THEIR AUTHORITY BY REFUSING
`TO ADDRESS REHEARING ON THIS CLAIM?
`
`WHETHER DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL ABUSED THEIR AUTHORITY
`BY REFUSING TO ADDRESS AND OR REVERSE PETITIONER HABEAS
`CORPUS BACK TO THE TRIAL TO RESOLVE?
`
`WHETHER DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL ABUSED THEIR AUTHORITY
`BY REFUSING TO ADDRESS PETITIONER REHEARING?
`
`WHETHER ALL COURTS THAT DENIED PETITIONER CLAIMS
`VIOLATED THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
`
`/4
`
`
`
`j
`
`LIST OF PARTIES
`
`All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.
`
`[ X ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all
`parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as
`follows:
`
`Ms. Julie L. Jones, etc., Secretary Florida Dept. of Corrections, Appellee; 501 South
`Calhoun Street; Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
`
`Attorney General Office, Mrs. Pamela Jo. Bondi; The Capitol, Suite PL-01; Tallahassee,
`Florida 32399-1050
`
`SClerk of the Court, Fifth District Court of Appeal; 300 South Beach Street; Daytona
`Beach, Florida 32114-5002
`
`Clerk of the Court; 18th Judicial Circuit Court; P.O. Box 8099; Sanford, Florida 32772-
`
`
`
`(
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`
`Page No.
`1
`
`MEMORANDUMOF LAW .............................................................................................3
`
`JURISDICTION...............................................................................................................3
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................................5
`
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ...........................................................................17
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ON GROUND ONE .....................................................6
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ON GROUND TWO ....................................................8
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ON GROUND THREE ..................................................15
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ON GROUND FOUR ...................................................16
`
`INDEX TO APPENDICES
`
`APPENDIX - (A) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Dated 12-12-16
`
`APPENDIX - (B) Court Order Denying Habeas Corpus Dated 1-4-17
`
`APPENDIX - (C) Motion for Rehearing, Dated 1-18-17
`
`APPENDIX - (D) Court Order Denying Rehearing, Dated March 6, 2017
`
`APPENDIX - (E) Notice of Appeal, Dated March 16, 2017
`
`APPENDIX - (F) Court Order Per Curiam Appeal, Dated June 13, 2017
`
`APPENDIX - (G) Court Order to File Rehearing Granted, Dated July 28, 2017
`
`APPENDIX - (H) Motion for Rehearing by Petitioner, Dated 8-24-17
`
`APPENDIX - (I) Court Order Denying Motion for Rehearing, Dated 11-26-17
`
`iv
`
`
`
`A
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
`
`CASES
`
`PAGE NUMBER
`
`State v. Anderson, 537 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1989)
`
`. 10
`
`Hpt v. People of the Territory of Utah, 114 U.S. 491-92 (1885) ..............................10
`
`Gray v. State, 404 So.2d 388 (Fla. 1981) ..................................................................13
`
`Nelson v. State, 398 So.2d 920 (Fla. 1981) ..............................................................13
`
`State v. Tuttle, 177 So.3d 1246 (Fla. 2015) ..............................................................15
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`Rule 3.133, FIa.R.Crim.P. .......................................................................................... 6, 10, 14
`
`Rule 3.140(G) & (B) ..................................................................................................6, 10, 12, 13
`
`F.S. 79.01-09 .............................................................................................................18
`
`f.S. 893.135(1)(a) (2006) ..........................................................................................8, 15
`
`F.S. 837.02 ................................................................................................................9, 14
`
`F.S. 27.04 ..................................................................................................................12
`
`F.S. 896.101(3)(a) & (5) ............................................................................................16
`
`F.S. 896.104(2)(c) & (4)(a) ........................................................................................16
`
`OTHER
`
`Article1 § 15 ............................................................................................................6, 10, 17
`
`Article1 § 13 ............................................................................................................18
`
`V
`
`
`
`IN THE
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`
`For cases from federal courts:
`
`The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix N/A to the
`petition and is
`reported at
`; or,
`N/A
`has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
`is unpublished.
`
`The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix N/A to the
`petition and is
`[] reported at
`; or,
`N/A
`[] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
`[] is unpublished.
`
`[X] For cases from state courts:
`
`The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at Appendix
`to the petition and is
`(F)
`; or,
`[I reported at
`N/A
`[I has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
`[J is unpublished.
`
`The opinion of the
`N/A
`Appendix N/A
`to the petition and is
`; or,
`reported at
`N/A
`has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
`is unpublished.
`
`court appears at
`
`
`
`k
`
`10
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`For cases from federal courts:
`
`The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case
`was
`N/A
`
`No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.
`
`A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of Appeals on
`the following date:
`N/A
`, a copy of the order denying
`rehearing appears at Appendix
`
`N/A
`
`I An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted to and
`including
`(date) on
`N/A
`(date) in
`N/A
`
`Application No. _____
`
`
`
`The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
`
`[X] For cases from state courts:
`
`The date on which the highest state court decided my case was June 13, 2017. A copy
`of that decision appears at Appendix
`(F)
`
`A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:
`, and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at
`N/A
`Appendix N/A
`
`An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted to an
`including
`(date) on
`(date) in
`N/A
`N/A
`Application No. -A N/A
`
`The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).
`
`2
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`
`The word "law" as used in this commandment means an enactment by the State
`
`Legislature, not by a city, or state commission or any other political body. See: [FN2]. This
`
`clause, the purpose of which is to identify the statute as an act of Legislature by expressing the
`
`authority behind the act. [FN5] is the essential to the validity of a statute [FN4].
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C., Sec. (1254)(1) and F.S. 79.01(5)(9),
`
`Bradford v. State, 93 So.3d 1180 (Fla. 2012). When any person detained in custody, whether
`
`charged with a criminal offense or not, applies the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals,
`
`U.S. District Court of Appeal, or any Judge thereof or any Circuit Judge for a Writ of Habeas
`
`Corpus and shows by affidavit or evidence probable cause to believe that he or she is detained
`
`without lawful authority, the Court, Justice or Judge to whom such application is made shall
`
`grant the writ forthwith, against the person in whose custody the appellant is detained and
`
`returnable immediately before any of the Court's Justices or Judges as the writ directs.
`
`Facially unconstitutional means that no set of circumstances exist under which the
`
`statute would be valid. See: State v. Bales, 343 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1977); Cashatt v. State, 873
`
`So.2d 430 (Fla. 1st Dist. 2006); Fla. Dept. of Rev. v. City of Gainesville, 918 So.2d 250, at 256 (Fla.
`
`2005). As the Courts stated in Herrera v. Collins, 113 S.Ct. at 853 (1992) ... Federal Habeas
`
`Court's sit to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution, also not
`
`to correct errors of fact. See: Moore v. Dempses, 261 U.S. 86-88, 43 S.Ct. 265, 67 L.Ed. 543
`
`3
`
`
`
`(1923); "Judge Holmes" what we have to deal with on habeas review is not the Petitioner's
`
`innocence or guilt, but solely the question of whether their Constitutional Rights have been
`
`preserved, Hyde v. Shine, 199 U.S. 62, 84, 25 S.Ct. 760-764, 50 L.Ed. 90 (1905). "It is well settled
`
`that upon habeas corpus the court will not weigh the evidence of any case."
`
`Absence of Jurisdiction of the convicting court is a basis for certiorari review, cognizable
`
`under the due process clause. See: Lowery v. Estelle, 696 F.2d 333 (5th Cir. 1983); Crosby v.
`
`Bradstreet, U.S. 83 S.Ct. 1300 (1963); Cotton v. U.S., 122 S.Ct. 1781 (2002).
`
`In reference to my civil rights being violated by the trial judge, ,5th DCA" Court Judges,
`
`as well as my 1st 5th 6th 8th and 14th Amendments. Review the Civil Right Act of 1866, which
`
`Judges are required to adhere with the laws of that State.
`
`4
`
`
`
`of
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`On April 27, 2009, in Case No.: F06-03897-CFO, a Fourth Amended Indictment -
`
`Information was filed in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Seminole County, Florida
`
`'charging Petitioner Arnaldo Martinez with one count of continuing criminal enterprise, F.S.
`
`893.20, two counts of Trafficking in Cannabis by Possessing More Than 25 Pounds, but less than
`
`2,000 Pounds, F.S. 893.135(1)(a); Two Counts of Conspiracy to Import,, Posses or Traffic in
`
`Cannabis, F.S. 893.135(1)(a)(1); Two Counts of Money Laundering Engaging in Illegal Financial
`
`Transactions, F.S. 896.101(3)(a).
`
`On May 8, 2009, Petitioner was found guilty of all counts listed above. On July 27, 2009,
`
`Petitioner Martinez was sentenced to 30 years in the Florida Department of Corrections.
`
`5
`
`
`
`GROUND ONE
`
`TRIAL COURT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO
`SUBJECT DEFENDANT TO THE CHARGE OF CONTINUING
`CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE, AS THE DEFENDANT DID NOT COMMIT
`THREE OR MORE FELONIES UNDER CHAPTER 893, AS ALLEGED IN
`COUNT ONE
`
`Conspiracy to import, possess or traffic in cannabis as charged in Count 3, is a lesser
`
`included offense of Count 1 as noted on the verdict form; therefore, this precludes Count 3
`
`from being considered as a felony committed under Chapter 893. As well Counts 5 and 7 were
`
`nolle prosequi and could not be considered as violations pursuant to section 893.
`
`Therefore, the State did not meet the burden of proving that the elements for the crime
`
`of "Continuing Criminal Enterprise" were met, thereby voiding the Court's Jurisdiction to
`
`convict the Defendant of that crime, as required by Rule 3.133, Fla.R.Crim.P., and Rule 3.140(g).
`
`Pursuant to Art. I § 15, which provides the basis for attaching the jurisdiction of a court to
`
`subject a person to the jeopardy of a trial conviction and imprisonment,
`
`"(a) No person shall be tried ... for a felon without presentment
`of an information under oath filed by the prosecuting officers of
`the Court."
`
`Simply stated, a Court can accept jurisdiction only after an information is filed under the
`
`oath of the prosecuting attorney. Clearly, jurisdiction cannot attach pursuant to a false or
`
`perjures oath.
`
`The Court must make a finding that "competent evidence" exists, which if un-refuted at
`
`trial, is "sufficient" to warrant a guilty jury verdict. In the instant case at bar, this doesn't hold
`
`true, as it clearly states on the jury verdict form that Count 3 - "Conspiracy To Import, Posses or
`
`
`
`Traffic In Cannabis", is a lesser included offense of Count 1, thereby, eliminating it as one of the
`
`three (3) required felonies under 893.
`
`7
`
`
`
`GROUND TWO
`
`TRIAL COURT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO
`SUBJECT DEFENDANT TO THE CHARGE OF "TRAFFICKING IN
`CANNABIS" UNDER F.S. 893.135(1)(a), AS ALLEGED IN COUNT
`TWO
`
`The State filed a Fourth Amended Charging Information on the 27th day of April
`
`2009, by A.S.A. Anna R. Valentini, of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit and stated that she filed said
`
`information in Good Faith and certifies that "testimony under oath" has been received from the
`
`material witness or witnesses for the offense(s) .......Sworn to as true
`
`constitute the
`
`offense(s) therein charged.
`
`The elements for the crime of "Trafficking in Cannabis", under F.S. 893.135(1)(a) (2006)
`
`states as follows:
`
`(a) Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures,
`delivers, or brings into this State, or who is knowingly in "actual
`or constructive possession of, in excess of 25 pounds of cannabis
`commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be
`known as "trafficking in cannabis".
`
`In the instant case at bar, the Charging Information alleges that "In The County of
`
`Seminole", State of Florida, on or about August 17, 2006, Arnaldo Martinez did knowingly sell,
`
`purchase, deliver, manufacture, or bring into the State or was knowingly in actual or
`
`constructive possession of 25 pounds, but less than 2,000 pounds, of cannabis, contrary to
`
`893.135(1)(a), Florida Statutes. In accordance with the Seminole County Sheriff's Office, Arrest
`
`Report # 2006 WA 005180, the arrest didn't happen until approximately 0915 hours, in
`
`Pensacola, Florida (Escambia County), to intercept the Defendant, who was travelling to the
`
`Miami area of Florida, from Texas with approximately 200 pounds of cannabis.
`
`E1
`
`
`
`This is in contradiction with the Seminole County Sheriff's Office, Arrest Report #
`
`200600007988, which states that on the 17th of August, 2006 they executed a court authorized
`
`search warrant at the residence of Orestes Sutherland, located at 1525 Mockingbird Lane,
`
`Longwood, FL., and this is where they received the information from a cooperating Defendant,
`
`who was arrested at that residence, of the second shipment coming from Texas, heading to
`
`Miami, Florida area. It is further alleged that Agents Torina, Shor and Rice continued to follow
`
`Defendant Hutchins, who exited 1-10 at exit 142 in Marianna, FL and followed him to a Sunoco
`
`Gas Station where they made contact with Mr. Hutchins and discovered (2) two large black
`
`canvas bags, and one (1) medium black/red canvas bag in his vehicle.
`
`Agent Rice, opened the bags under the premise that they were similar to the bags
`
`seized at the Seminole residence. Agent Rice allegedly discovered several blocks of marijuana
`
`packages similar in nature to the marijuana seized at 1525 Mockingbird Lane. Mr. Timothy
`
`Hutchins was taken into custody for "trafficking in marijuana". Mr. Martinez was subsequently
`
`arrested in regards to an outstanding warrant and both Defendants were transported back to
`
`Seminole County Jail for booking.
`
`At no time was Mr. Martinez in actual or constructive possession of any cannabis in
`
`excess of 25 pounds, per the above noted Arrest Report, nor was he in Seminole County as
`
`alleged in the Charging Information. The Assistant State Attorney, Anna R. Valentini, Florida Bar
`
`No. 0196266, committed "Perjury In An Official Proceeding", in violation of F.S. § 837.02 and
`
`perpetrated a "Fraud Upon The Court", when she executed the jurat, in submitting a void
`
`Charging Information to the court, asserting that she had received "testimony under oath",
`
`from "a material witness", as alleged in the Charging Information.
`
`
`
`The Assistant State Attorney, (Valentini), in that circumstance made a mockery of the
`
`charging process, in violation of the Petitioner's rights to "Due Process" of law, protected under
`
`both the Florida and the United States Constitution, and she may not be permitted to benefit
`
`from her misdeeds. The actions of the State voided the Court's jurisdiction to try the accused
`
`Petitioner, when the Court was not properly invoked. Jurisdiction did not exist, unless
`
`secondary preliminary steps were taken, which were not, as the State did not file under Oath,
`
`as there was not a material witness(es) that saw Mr. Martinez in actual or constructive
`
`possession of cannabis. See State v. Anderson, 537 So.2d 1372, 1374 (Fla. 1989); and Fla. Const.
`
`Art. 1, § 15(a) - Prosecution for Crime.
`
`Since, the initial trial, plea and proceedings were "null and void" for lack of actual or
`
`constructive service for the processing of the offense as charged ... ibid., all subsequent trial
`
`and judgments upon said information are also "null and void". See Hopt v. People of the
`
`Territory of Utah, 114 U.S. 491-92.
`
`In summary, the Court's jurisdiction is instituted, pursuant to Art. 1, § 15, as it provides
`
`the basis for attaching the jurisdiction of a court, to subject a person to the jeopardy of a trial
`
`conviction and imprisonment as follows:
`
`"(a) No person shall be tried ... for a felony without presentment
`of an information under oath filed by the prosecuting officers of
`the Court".
`
`("There Is No Doubt, That The "Oath", Must Be A Truth Oath")
`
`Article 1 § 15 embodies a substantive right which may not be diminished, overruled or in
`
`any other way negated by statue or procedural rule. Art. 1 § 15 when considered in pan
`
`materia with Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 3.140(g) clearly defines the due process
`
`10
`
`
`
`of law required to invoke the jurisdiction of a court to try a suspect for a crime.
`
`Simply stated, a court can accept jurisdiction only "after" an Information is filed under
`
`the oath of the prosecuting attorney. Clearly jurisdiction cannot attach pursuant to a false or
`
`perjured oath. Rule 3.140(g) mandates that the filing prosecutor demonstrate that he/she is
`
`filing in Good Faith by making oath to the Court that he/she has received testimony under oath
`
`from a material witness to the offense.
`
`This "testimony under oath", is required to satisfy Rule 3.133 wherein the Court must
`
`make a finding that "competent" evidence exists, which, if un-refuted at trial, is sufficient to
`
`warrant a guilty jury verdict.'
`
`In the instant case at bar, an arrest warrant was issued without a probable cause, so
`
`there was no prior probable cause, that the specific crime alleged in the Charging Information
`
`had indeed occurred.
`
`Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 3.140(b) states "The Indictment or Information
`
`on which the Defendant is to be tried shall be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of
`
`the essential facts constituting the offense charged." In the instant case at bar, it is alleged that
`
`the Plaintiff was trafficking in cannabis, by possessing more than 25 pounds; however, the only
`
`person that had actual or constructive possession of drugs was Mr. Timothy Hutchins.
`
`Therefore, there is an absence of such "testimony under oath" from the Police or
`
`material witness(es), as to the alleged crime, and no such evidence exists; thus, the Court's
`
`jurisdiction fails.
`
`Once a complaint is filed with the State Attorney's Office, it becomes the burden, in fact
`
`1 State v. Arthur, (id)
`
`11
`
`
`
`the duty, of the State Attorney to investigate the allegations contained in the Police Statement
`
`or Probable Cause Affidavit. In the instant case at bar, there was no Probable Cause Affidavit,
`
`so the State Attorney was required to investigate the allegations alleged in the Police
`
`Statements. In order to enable the State Attorney to exercise the due diligence required in
`
`making an informed decision to prosecute an accused he is provided with investigatory
`
`authority pursuant to Florida Statute § 27.04.
`
`In non capital offenses, the State Attorney may subpoena witnesses and take testimony
`
`under oath in an official proceeding for the express purpose of confirming or refuting the
`
`allegations of the police contained in the arrest documents. (F.S. § 27.04)
`
`After conducting this independent investigation, the State Attorney is required under
`
`Rule 3.140(g) to demonstrate that he is invoking the Court's jurisdiction in Good Faith based
`
`upon competent evidence he has obtained in the form of testimony "under oath" from a
`
`material witness with "first-hand knowledge" of the offense "charged". In the instant case at
`
`bar, this would have been the Police Officers involved in the arrest. Since none of the Police
`
`Task Force Investigator's stated under oath that they had "First-Hand Knowledge" of the
`
`offense "Charged", The State Attorney failed to obtain, in the form of testimony "under oath"
`
`from any material witness(es), that Mr. Martinez possessed marijuana in excess of 25 pounds in
`
`the County of Seminole, or anywhere else for that matter, to confirm the Police Affidavit(s),
`
`prior to issuing a Charging Information to the Clerk of Court.
`
`She has violated her Oath of Office by executing the Charging Information to the jurat,
`
`when she did not have a material witness(es) that had given a sworn testimony under oath,
`
`that they had "first-hand knowledge" that Mr. Martinez possessed the cannabis alleged in the
`
`12
`
`
`
`Charging Information, as required by law.
`
`Due Process of Law "mandates" that the State Attorney does, in fact, conduct the
`
`independent investigation required to confirm the allegations contained in inadmissible police
`
`affidavits. When the State Attorney swears in the jurat to the Information, that he/she has
`
`received the requisite "testimony under oath", and where they have not, they have committed
`
`"perjury in an official proceeding", "a fraud upon the court", and has unconstitutionally placed
`
`the burden of proof upon the defendant.2
`
`Since the allegations in a police affidavit 'do not" constitute evidence admissible in
`
`Court, the accused 'is not' properly advised of the "specific" elements of the charges against
`
`him, and, in fact, the State may at trial introduce different allegations and evidence with
`
`impunity. This lack of "specific" notice in itself constitutes "Fundamental Jurisdictional Error, in
`
`violation of Rule 3.140(b), (d).
`
`In the instant case at bar, that is exactly what happened when the State Attorney filed
`
`the Charging Information based on inadmissible police affidavits, without conducting an
`
`independent investigation, that would have revealed that Mr. Martinez never possessed the
`
`alleged drug, neither actual or constructive possession, thereby voiding the Court's jurisdiction,
`
`as there was not a valid Charging Information alleging a crime of possession of more than 25
`
`pounds, but less than 2,000 pounds of Cannabis, to justify the charge of Trafficking in Cannabis,
`
`as alleged in the Charging Information.
`
`This is a fundamental error and is an exception in Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule
`
`3.190(c), See Gray v. State, 404 So.2d 388; Nelson v. State, 398 So.2d 920.
`
`2 Jenkins v. State, 6 So.3d 71 (4th DCA 2008)
`
`13
`
`
`
`"...jurisdiction does not "spring back' to the circuit court, it
`simply does not exist".
`
`In order for a Court to accept Jurisdiction of a case, the judge must make a
`
`determination that probable cause exists. Fla.R.App.P., Rule 3.133 defines the standard of
`
`proof required:
`
`"In determining probable cause to detain a defendant, the Judge
`shall apply the standard for issuance of an arrest warrant and
`the finding may be based on a complaint, affidavit, deposition
`under oath, or, if necessary, the testimony under oath properly
`recorded."
`
`The State Attorney asserts their Good Faith in invoking the Court's jurisdiction by
`
`advising the Court in swearing to the jurat to the Information, that they have conducted their
`
`independent investigation and has received the testimony under oath from a material witness
`
`to the offense required by Rule 3.140(g).
`
`Relying entirely upon the State Attorney's execution of the jurat in the Information, the
`
`Court can accept jurisdiction, premised upon the State Attorney's assertion that they have
`
`received "testimony under oath", from a material witness. When in fact the State Attorney has
`
`not received such sworn testimony and instead based their jurat solely upon an unsworn police
`
`arrest statement or affidavit, they have committed perjury in an Official Proceeding (F.S. §
`
`837.02) and perpetrated a "Fraud Upon The Court", voiding the Information and wresting
`
`jurisdiction from the Court. The State Attorney in that circumstance has made a mockery of the
`
`charging process, in violation of the accused right to due process of law, and may not be
`
`permitted to benefit from his misdeeds.
`
`14
`
`
`
`4
`
`GROUND THREE
`
`TRIAL COURT, VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL
`RIGHTS, AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY, WHEN IT CONVICTED HIM
`OF THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF COUNT ONE:
`CONTINUING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE (LIFE) 893.20 AND COUNT
`THREE: CONSPIRACY TO IMPORT, POSSES OR TRAFFIC IN
`CANNABIS (Fl) 893.135(1)(a)1.
`
`The trial court violated the Defendant's constitutional rights against Double Jeopardy,
`
`when it convicted and sentenced him to the lesser included offense of his primary offense of
`
`"Continuing Criminal Enterprise" in Count One of the Charging Information, as evident by the
`
`Verdict Form, showing Count Three, "Conspiracy To Import, Posses Or Traffic In Cannabis", as a
`
`lesser included offense.
`
`Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court Ruling in State v. Tuttle, 177 So.3d 1246 (Fla.
`
`2015) "Double Jeopardy prohibits conviction for two crimes, where all of the elements of one
`
`crime are subsumed within the elements of the second crime." All cites within included.
`
`The Appellant/Petitioner will incorporate the Arguments in Grounds One and Two, that
`
`the Trial Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to convict the Petitioner, as the crime charged,
`
`did not occur in Seminole County, as alleged in the Charging Information and there was no
`
`statements from any material witness, or evidence that Mr. Martinez conspired with anyone to
`
`commit the alleged offense, as sworn to by the Assistant State Attorney (Valentine); thereby,
`
`making the Charging Information, "null and void".
`
`15
`
`
`
`GROUND FOUR
`
`TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, AND VIOLATED THE
`DEFENDANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, BY ALLOWING THE
`CHARGES IN COUNTS FOUR AND SIX TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE
`JURY WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE
`STATE OF THE CRIMES CHARGED.
`
`The trial court abused its discretion and violated the Defendant's Due Process Rights, by
`
`submitting to the jury the charges in Counts 4 and 6 without substantial evidence provide by
`
`the State to prove those crimes alleged in Counts 4 and 6, as to the total dollar amount
`
`exceeding $100,000.00 in a twelve month period in violation of F.S. 896.101(3)(a) and
`
`896. 101(5) in count 4 and in violation of F.S. 896.104(2)(c) and 896.104(4)(a) for Count 6.
`
`The Petitioner will incorporate the arguments in Grounds 1 & 2 that the trial court
`
`lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, as the Charging Information was null and void, as there is not
`
`sworn statement from any material witness(es) that these crimes happen in Seminole County
`
`as alleged and the only time the Petitioner had ever been to Seminole County is when he was
`
`transported by the police.
`
`The bank records submitted as evidence on the (3) accounts alleged to be involved in
`
`these illegal transactions, will prove that the amount of funds deposited in the time period
`
`alleged, do not exceed $100,000.00.
`
`16
`
`
`
`LA
`
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
`
`The Trial Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to subject defendant to the charges
`
`alleged in the State's charging information. This is a violation of the Defendant's Constitutional
`
`Right afforded under the Florida Constitutional pursuant to Article 1 § 15, which provides the
`
`basis for attaching the jurisdiction of a court to subject a person to the jeopardy of a trial
`
`conviction and imprisonment. In the case at bar, the Defendant had never been to Seminole
`
`County, nor the city of Sanford, Florida as alleged in the Charging Information.
`
`Therefore, the Defendant has served over 11 years in prison based on a violation of his
`
`Constitutional Rights afforded under both the U.S. and Florida Constitutions prohibiting the
`
`incarceration of a Citizen without "due Process" of the Law, and he should be granted an
`
`Emergency Release on this "Manifest of Injustice" due to the Court's "Fundamental Error" to
`
`acuse him to be unlawfully detained.
`
`Since, the initial trial, plea and proceedings were "null and void" for lack of actual or
`
`constructive service for the processing of the offense as charged ... ibid., all subsequent trial
`
`and judgments upon said information are also "null and void". Hopt v. People of the Territory of
`
`Utah, 114 U.S. 491-92.
`
`17
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`WHEREFORE, the Petitioner Martinez respectfully moves this most Honorable Court to
`
`vacate judgment and sentence that was illegally and unlawfully imposed as detailed by the
`
`Arguments herein. Pursuant to F.S. 79.01-09 and Article 1, § 13 of the Florida Constitution, the
`
`Defendant moves for his case to be "Discharged", and this cause set for "Expungment"
`
`proceeding with the Division Prosecutor.
`
`This Petition for a Writ of Certiorari should be granted.
`
`DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
`
`I HEREBY DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that I have read the foregoing
`
`petition, and that the facts and statements contained therein are true and correct.
`
`DATE: I2/i8/z2n-
`
`Arnaldo Martinez, pro se
`
`18
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
