Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Nolan Woods, Petitioner v. Florida Department of Corrections

2 i - ?'? OweaMtss;

No.

ORIGINAL

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

NOV 1 8 2021

IN THE

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

nqian m» wooes

^ — PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

RICKY D-

SEG'RY PEPT. CORRECTtQiNL RF.QPnMnPMT(Q)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

O.S, DISTRICT COURT FORTHE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA'__

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

KtQLAN M,WOODS EC3W3rm

(Your Name)

SOUTH BAYCORRICTIOWALFACILITY* f,0. 80X7(7)

(Address)

SOUTH BAYj FL 3349.3-7171

(City, State, Zip Code)

fe4l) 99Z-95 65

(Phone Number)

fgCENE° '

%8j0<0^

I

QUESTH>N(PRESENT£D)

THIS COURT CREATE a BRIGHT-LINE

RULE DELINEATING THAT THE ONLY CURE FOR A

DOUBLE JEOPARDY VIOLATION CAUSED BY DUAL

CONVICTIONS OF THE SAME CRIME ISA JUDGMENT

OF ACQUITAL FOR THE SECOND OR LESSER CHARGE;

AND THAT THE SECOND OR LESSER CHARGE CAN­

will

NOT BE RE-PROSECUTED?

ii

LIST OF PARTIES

[Vj All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[ ] 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:

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

REID SCOTT —trial prosecutor

Ashley Hoady— /VH-mney General of Florida

Micb&iJ Me AuUffe wState Attorney

Mara C,Herbert— App„ Counsel &sjts*Pub, Defender

Lucy 6rov/n —. original ■+ riaijud.9^».

George Burton' — retrial judge,

Ricky D. DlX0tt„ Secretary, Florida Departmentaf Corrections,

Respondent.

TePF sorwfln—-Trial Attorney

GRANT and LAGOA

as:tHh Circuit judges,

\

D-onqld M. Middfebrooks —*U.S. Di strict dudge,Southern Dtst-FL.

William Mflttewman

’—* D,S» Magistrate

Southern District Gf Florida,

V * r

HI

forfhe

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

1

JURISDICTION

2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

ft.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

6

CONCLUSION

7

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A* 11 th U.5. Cfrct/R COOft of

Appeol ■— Denials

APPENDIX B-aS. District Court cF the Southern Olst.of FL=—Opimon

on. the merits,.

r

'

APPENDIX C« U.S. District Court of the Southern Oist. of FL—Maqistra+e Judge's Report and Aecommenrfat'ron^

APPENDIX D §2254 petition

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

IV

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

yf For cases from federal courts:

\V. t'

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

A

[ ] reported at

5 or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[yf is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

V

p to

[ ] reported at

; or,

has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

is unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the_

appears at Appendix

court

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

1.

to

JURISDICTION

[ 'I^For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided mv case

was July 14-,,to24

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

M A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date: AogcJS’l' 20; ’ZOZt

; and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix A

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including______

(date) on

(date)

in Application No.__ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 3,254(1).

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix_______

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

--------------------------------- , and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including____

(date) on

(date) in

Application No.__ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

BOLDING v. STATE, 28 So. 3d 956 @ 95?(fLTDCA 20(g)

4>

LATOS

6

v. STATE,39 'So.3d 511 (Fla. 4DCA 201 o)

COUGHLIN v, STATE,332 So-2d 1224 1.226(FL 2DCA2G06) 6

HUDSON v. LOUISIANA^ 450 ITS,40{l96l)

6

MACIAS V- STATE, 100 So,3d-6SZ (Fla4DCA2016}

6

MENHA v. NEW YONy 423 U.S0l((975)

STATE v. H0UGHTA(LIN6f 704

163 (Fta. 5DCAI997)

6

6

GAMBLE v, UNITED STATES, 58? US-,139 S.C+, 1960(2019)

6

(u.s. supreme court kole io)

ca) a United States court of appeals has entered a

decision that has so far departed tram the accep­

STATUTES AND RULES

ted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanc­

tioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call

for an exercise of this court's supervisory power*

other

• - — i' ii

in

.I-

FLORIDA CONSTITUTION

4

ART 1 Sect, 2 Basic Rights sP equal protection,

ART 1 Sect B Due Process of Law< Doubl& Jeo:pairdy.

4

ART1 Sect 14 Unless Charged wtha CaprtatoHense-BaH, 4

U.S, CONSTITUTION/

5mAMENDMENT- double, jeopardy

14TH AMENDMENT- DUE PROCESS 0FL&V

3.

A

4

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 1

&EC7T0KT2. Bessie rights,—AH natural persons, Femaleand male alike

are equal before the f$W ornd have 'um$ If enable eights, among whfcfo

are the

-in ess

0

to b© rewards for 'iadysiry dnd To acquire' peme^s etn4 protect property;

except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real

property by aliens ineligible For citizenship may be regulated or

prohibited by law. No person) shall be deprived of an/ right because

of race, religion? national origin, or physical disability,

SECTION 9 , Due process.—No person shall be deprived of life?

liberty or property without due process of law? Or be twice pot in

Jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal mgjtfef

to be a witness 09ainst oneself.

SECTION 14< Pretrial release and detention-Uni, ss ckorged'-WHb

a capital offense or on offense punishable, / by life imprisonment and

t!(\Q proof of guilt is evident or -Hie presumption is great, every person

charged- with a crime or violation of municipal or county ordinance

shall be entitled to pretrial release on reasonable conditions, if

no. conditions of release can reasonably protect thecammunHry

from Risk of physical harm to persons, assure the presense of the

accused at trial? or assure the Integrity of the judicial process,the

accused may be detained.

as. constitution

Amendment 31.- Nio p-arson shah be held nor Shall any person be

Subject far the Same offence to be twice put In jeopardy of life or limb nor

shall be- compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against him$©lf, nor be deprived of life liberty or property? without doe process or

* t »

law.

Amendment IXEr-**"- Art. 1 - nor shall any State deprive any person of

life, liberty, or property, without doe process of law? nor deny To any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the low*■

*

4.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

At Appen^ Ik V is the U.S. District Court for the Southern District OF

Florida order .adopting the report of Magistrate judge Where the

sfa-tement af-the case is clearly laid out in the 5th paragraph

of page 1. Nolan Woods was charged with two statutory viola­

tion that describe conduct which Is identical tothe point

that one cannot be performed without committing the.other*

thus, when charged io9ether 1ft Q single episode violate cons­

titutional protections against double jeopardy. Nolan Woods

trial jury found him guilty on both counts. To avoid doubts jeo­

pardy the trial judge wifheld adjudication on the lesser QFPensethat was Subsumed by the greater and sentenced

Nolan Woods to life in prison.

Florida appellate courts have unanimously held/-thatthe

onTy curefor a double jeopardy caused by durol convictions based

the same behaviour, ina single criminal episode,is to render a

judgment of acquitdl for the lesser offense subsumed under

the greater. That was not done in this case. When Nolan Woods'

conviction was overturned on appeal he was retried for the great­

er charge wiiMhe second listed b$ g lesser included offense.

Woods was found innocent of the gfgcsftr charge but guilty of the

leaser charge which under Florida Saw he was acguitfedof, in the

first trial, thus creating a legal paradox that double jeopardy

protections are designed to prevent*

5,

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The double -jeopardy douse. oF the Federal Constitution 5th Amendment

provides that no person, may be twice put in jeopardy for the some offe^e. • • at its core,-the clause means that those acquitted or

COrw/icted Of & particular “Offense* cannot be tried a second time

for th§ same r'of fens eut Justice AUto tn Gambia v. Untied States,

58? u.s. *—) __r|139 S.C+. I960, 204 L.ed. 2d 322 (2019).

The double jeopardy and due process daises of the State

and Federal constitutions required that the conviction for the

lower offense be nullified amd that a judgment of net guilty be

entered for it, discharging the defendant. It was a de party refram

the essential requirements of law not to properly dischorgethe

defendant on his Lewd and lascivious M oiestcit ion convict ion «n count

H, Had this constitutional requirement been complied with, the de­

fendant's Lewdond Lascivious Molestation conviction in count H

would not have existed upon remand after the reversal of the con­

viction for count I. Csee.camkf/n V-Sfwte, 932 So.2d 12.24,12.26 (flo2OCA2008); also:State UHoughtailins, 704So.ed !63?16470ra.5DCA

1397): Balding v. State, 28 So.3<A95 6« 957, (Fta . 1DCA 2010); Lotos,

v. State? 3$ SQ-3d 51U 512-13, (Fid. ADC A 2010); Macros V, State,

130 So.3d 687 (Fla.4DCA 2016): vEven. holding second conviction in

obey ounce dae^oot cute daubte jeopardy^)

where the Stateis precluded bythe 0-S, Constitution fromhailm^

a defendant Into court on a charge ^Federal law requires that a

conviction onfhot charge be set aside ey.enif the conviction was

entered pursuant to a counseled, plea of guilty, (seeJjjjdsgny^

Louts/mQ) 4SO as, 40, (1981)) Minna y, we w Yorkf 423 u.s *6t,6z(i$rs)

Due to drcumstarnces beyond his control caused by covio-b,

fhe Petitisrrsr in this case has beeh unable t© comply with the time­

ly filing requirements of procedural law. Because the-failur§

to address the oon&titufiorial deprivation presented would

result in a manifest injustice) a special dispensation m i nobler

to over come this procedural defect. ■

AHe^onder Hamilton clearly articulated inThg Federalist

6,

Papers No.78 and 81 that the people were protected From judicial

branch oppression) intbe new constltvHonpioposed, tie explained

how ina Republican form of Govetmenf the courts would be held

down b\/ Strict rales governing every case that came before

them, Me Woods prays tfadt counsel will be appolnt#d to bring

this issue before the court for a just resolution. A resolution that

would include the 0rigtrM-me Rule stipulated m the question presented.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

z%

Date: 3~29 2022-

7.