Re: Perea vs State

On Nov 15, 2015 9:32 AM, "guy perea" <guyperea@gmail.com> wrote:

THE DECISION IN THIS CASE IS IN EXPRESS AND DIRECT CONFLICT
WITH THE DECISION OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT IN SCOTT v. STATE,
958 So. 2d 596 (4DCA 2007); AND THE FIFTH DISTRICT IN *PEREA v.
STATE, 35 So. 3D 58 (5DCA 2010); AND THE U. S. SUPREME COURT IN
MILLER v. FLORIDA, 482 U.S. 423, 107 S. Ct. 2446 (1986).
Petitioner filed her motion to correct illegal sentence based on the fact that the
state "expanded" ( in their own words), the time frame of the crime with which
petitioner was charged to a period of two years. This two year period was the
5 main focus of the state's case at trial and not insignificant. This expanded time
frame (June 1993 to May 1995) spanned two separate sentencing guidelines.
The courts in all of the above cited cases have held that a defendant is entitled
to be sentenced under the most lenient version of the sentencing guidelines
when sentencing laws have been changed during a period when a defendant is
alleged to have committed a crime under the rule oflenity.
The Second District Court's decision in the present case is contrary to and in
express and direct conflict with all ofthe above decisions.
CONCLUSION
The petitioner requests this court to accept jurisdiction ofthis matter.
Respect 't ,
Heather Ciambrone DC# S10254
Lowell Correctional Institution
Main Unit
11120 NW Gainesville Road
Ocala, Florida 34482

*The issue is Subject matter of The State of Florida expanding term in such as the Walsh Act of Florida from California as California is one year for renew of Register to Expansion into 4 quarters of the State of Florida thus in Florida a Yearly Lease is unattended for such unequal approach of Several States. Require the State of Florida under United States Mandamus to cease Surveillance and to Compensation Plaintiff Perea for loss of Lease under Walsh Act.