No. 18-7362

Roy O. Daniels v. Florida

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2019-01-10
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: focusing on the core legal dispute I cannot identify a clear legal issue being raise I cannot provide a meaningful set of key terms. M in order to receive a more helpful response. As p making it difficult to extract a concise statemen the 'Question(s) Presented' section does not prov civil-rights collateral-attack due-process finality jurisdiction plea-bargain
Latest Conference: 2019-03-01
Question Presented (from Petition)

1) DO the PRINCIPLES OF FINALITY COUNT any mORE'ESPECICLLY IN a CASE WHERE HE FOUNDATZONAL TERMS of a"SPECZFICALLY AGREED APON NEGOTZATED FOR CUSTOM PLEA WERE BREACHED. (LAW MADE WORTHIESO! All With No COllateRal AHaCk GROUNDS O DOSO ON! ! THES CASE IS UNLZKE ANY CASE"EVER" TO DATE!)

#2) DO the Couts (ATALLuphold u5AT our Constitutionally PROteCted RighTS TO BE TREATED (TRIED!)AS ZNDIVEDUALS-ANYMORE! EMPHASIS ID, NO COURT TO DATE HAS ADDRESSED THE UN TZME BARRABIE JURZSDICTZONAL FOUNDATTONAL ERRORS.ISSUES OUR LAWO WEKE DESZGNED BY OUR FORE FATHERS TO FLOW TO PROB-
-LEIMS!!" THEY WERE NOT MENT TO BE MANVIPULATED SIGNORED BY. OFFICZHLS TRYZNG TO GET PERSONAL GAZN BY"MANIPULATIVE ..DESIGNS"OUT OF THEM'BY IGNORING CONTROLZNG!JISSUES OF OUR LAWS!"PROBLEMS I AM NOT ZN PRZSON BECAUSE MY CASE DOES. NOT HAVE MERITS! FOR IT DOES!!I AM ZN PRISON/WRONGFULLY! BECAUSE OFFZCZALS DO NOT WANT MY/! CUOTOM.)ZSSUES/GROUNDS TO COME. To LIGitr!

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the principles of finality still apply, especially in a case where the foundational terms of a specifically negotiated and agreed upon plea bargain were breached

Docket Entries

2019-03-04
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2019.
2019-02-11
Waiver of right of respondent Florida to respond filed.
2019-01-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 11, 2019)

Attorneys

Florida
Celia A. Terenzio — Respondent
Roy O. Daniels
Roy O. Daniels — Petitioner