IS PETITIONER'S FLORIDA CAPITAL LIFE PRISON SENTENCE WITH A 25 YEAR MINIMUM MANDATORY FOLLOWWED BY ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE UNDER FLORIDA STATUTE §775.082 (6) (1987), AN INDEFINITE / INDETERMINATE PRISON SENTENCE; MAKIONG IT IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 17, THAT "FORBIDS" INDEFINITE PRISON SENTENCES; A UNITED STATES SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION; AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FOLLOWING IS OWN CONSTITUTION, THAT RESULTED IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL FLORIDA STATUTE AND PETITIONER BEING CONFINED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH WOULD AID IN THIS COURTS APPELLATE JURISDICTION? NO REASONABLE JKURIST WOULD HAVE SENTENCED PETITIONER TO AN INDEFINITE PRISON SENTENCE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, SECTION 17.

THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE CREATED AND THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAS SUSTAINED FLORIDA PAROLE STATUTE §947. (1987); IN A MANNER THAT DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS COURTS 2013 UNITED STATES SIXTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL FINDINGS OF A RIGHT TO A STATE STATUTORY MINIMUM PRISON SENTENCE; WHEREIN FLORIDA STATUTE §947, PROVIDES THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW (THE FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION); AFTER 25 YEARS OF INCARCERAION, TOTAL DISCRETION TO MAKE CRIMINAL FINDINGS OF FACT THAT AGGRAVATES PETITIONER'S STATUTORY MINIMUM MANDATORY PRISON SENTENCE OF LIFE WITH A 25 YEAR MINIMUM MANDATORY FOLLOWED BY ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE; BY 76 YEARS, 2 MONTHS; THAT IGNORES PETITIONER'S PLEA BARGAIN, NO NOTICE, PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SPEEDY SENTENCING JUDGMENT, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, AND FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS; THAT NOW FORMS A CONSTITUTIONAL PART OF A NEW OFFENSE, THAT HAD NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO A JURY OR ADMITTED TO BY PETITIONER FOR AGGRAVATION OF PAROLE DATE; THAT HAS CREATED A COMPELLING EXTRAORDINARY QUESTION OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND FEDERAL CASE LAW; AS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FLA. STAT. §947., AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER AND WHETHER PETITIONER IS BEING CONFINED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION; THAT HAS NOT BEEN, BUT SHOULD BE, SETTLED BY THIS COURT OF LAST RESORT, THAT WILL AID IN THIS COURTS APPELLATE JURISDICTION?

THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS SUSTAINED FROM THE LOWER TRIBUNAL AN IMPORTANT FEDERAL QUESTION OF HABEAS CORPUS VS. CIVIL ACTION, AND RIGHT TO APPEAL; IN TWEED V. GOVERNOR OF STATE OF FLORIDA. et . al. CASE NO: 14-11099c FILED (MAIL BOX

Whether petitioner's Florida capital life prison sentence with a 25-year minimum mandatory followed by eligibility for parole under Florida Statute §775.082(6)(1987) is an indefinite/indeterminate prison sentence in direct conflict with the Florida Constitution Article I, Section 17, and a violation of the U.S. Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments