On June 7, 2021, Attorney Amy Gershenfeld Donnella, sent me a letter stating: ‘As you probably realize better than anyone, in order to get back into court, we’re going to need to find new evidence that hasn’t been presented to the court and to which we didn’t have access before.’. After 36 years since the conclusion of my trial in the Country Walk Babysitting Case, such a strategy floats over an optimism that I lack. On May 5, 2021, through an email, Producer Paul Berczeller from Free Turn in London and Los Angeles, in good faith offered to go door to door in Country Walk, in search of new evidence of my innocence. Can you imagine that scenario? I truly appreciate his good intentions and his faith in my cause, but I find that strategy to be illusive. There is only one realistic place where a good attorney, such as Amy, can locate evidence of my innocence, and that place is in the private files of the Miami Dade County State Attorney Office, now under the custody of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Florida Custodian of Records. I am 100% sure that evidence of my innocence must exist in those files, which I haven’t been able to obtain. And in my opinion, such evidence should be taken to the trial court with a State Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, not through a post-conviction motion under Fla.R.Cri.P. 3.850, because I AM ILLEGALLY IN PRISON AND HAVE EXHAUSTED ALL MY OTHER OPTIONS.
JURISDICTION
The Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Florida has jurisdiction to enter and to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Article V, Section 5 (b) of the Florida Constitution Fla.R.App.P. 9.030 (c) (3) and 9.100 Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.630 and Section 79.01 of the Florida Statutes. When a Florida State Habeas Corpus petitioner attacks the validity of the conviction by raising issues related to the trial proceedings, the jurisdiction in habeas proceedings lies with the trial court that imposed the sentence and rendered the judgement of conviction. See Collins vs State, 859 So.2nd 1244, at 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
HABEAS CORPUS TO CORRECT MANIFEST INJUSTICES
In my opinion, no other remedy than habeas corpus would be adequate to correct the gross manifested injustice to which I am being subjected since 1981 (Case #81-21904) and since 1984 (Case 84-19728-A). To establish a manifest injustice claim in the State of Florida, the reviewing court must be left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake, or fraud on the court, has occurred, which aversively affected my substantial legal rights to due process of law, to the point that without the benefit of the mistake, or of the fraud on the court, there is a reasonable probability of a different result in the outcome of each of my two cases. See Vega vs State, 288 So.3rd 1252, at 1258, (Fla. 5th DCA, 2020). The Black Law Dictionary, 11th Edition, at Page 1152, defines MANIFEST INJUSTICE as: ‘A direct, obvious, and observable error in a trial court.’. The courts of the State of Florida have determined that: ‘Error is fundamental in nature where a manifest injustice would otherwise occur.’. See Miller vs State, 988 So.2nd 138 (Fla. 1st DCA, 2008). Further, the United States Supreme Court has found ‘Plain error’ or ‘Fundamental error’, is error affecting the substantial legal rights of the parties. See Johnson vs United States, 520 U.S. 461 137 L.Ed 2nd 718 117 S.Ct. 1544 (1997). See Williams vs State, 736 So.2nd 699, (Fla. 4th DCA, 1999). The federal courts have determined that to demonstrate manifest injustice, a petitioner must demonstrate:
- That there was error
- That the error was plain.
- That the error affected his/her substantial rights.
- That the error affected the fundamental fairness of the proceedings
See United States vs Quintana, 500 F.3rd 1227, at 1232 (11th Cir., 2002).
Habeas Corpus is enshrined in the Florida Constitution to be used as a means to correct manifest injustices, and if it appears to a court of competent jurisdiction, that a person is being illegally restrained of his/her liberty, it’s the responsibility of that court to brush aside formal technicalities and to issue such appropriate orders as will do just justice. See Adams vs State, 957 So.2nd 1183 (Fla. 3rd DCA, 2006), citing Jamason vs State, 447 So.2nd 892, at 895 (Fla. 4th DCA, 1983) Anglin vs Mayo, 88 So.2nd 918 (Fla. 1956) and Baker vs State, 878 So.2nd 1236, at 1286-1287 /(Fla. 2004) (Hon. C.J. Anstead specially concurring and stated: ‘The Writ of Habeas Corpus is enshrined in our Constitution, to be used as a means to correct manifest injustices and its availability for use when all other remedies have been exhausted, has served our society well over many centuries. This court will, of course, remain alert to claims of manifest injustice, as will all Florida courts.’. The Court in Quarles vs State, 56 So.3rd 857 (Fla. 1st DCA, 2011), held that the Writ of Habeas Corpus remains available for the rare case in which a prisoner has been provided no adequate, or effective way, to test the legality of his/her detention, despite the procedures in Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850, citing: Valdez-Garcia vs State, 965 So.2nd 318 at 321, (Fla. 2nd DCA, 2012). The Court in Stephens vs State, 974 So.2nd 455 (Fla. 2nd DCA, 2008), held that to prevent manifest injustice and a denial of due process, relief may be afforded even to a litigant raising a successive claim.
I need pro bono legal help from Miami Dade County.
TO BE CONTINUED.
FRANCISCO FUSTER ESCALONA.