There exists exceptional circumstances of a United States Constitutional magnitude, wherein, based on substantive United States Supreme and other Federal Courts findings and dicta, the life portion of Florida Capital Criminal sentencing statute §775.082 (1) and (6) (1987) is an "indeterminate " prison sentence and was created by the Florida Legislature in direct CONFLICT with the Florida Constitution Article I, Section 17, that "forbids" indefinite prison sentences. In this habeas corpus cause of action, indefinite and indeterminate are synonymous. This legal fact, in accordance with this Court in Smiley v Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 368 (1932), is in direct CONFLICT with the Constitution of the United States.

This creates a habeas corpus constitutional action as to whether the life portion of Florida sentencing statute §775.082 (1) and (6) (1987), to which Petitioner [and approximately 4,000 other current Florida prisoners are incarcerated], is unconstitutional under the United States Constitution and whether Petitioner is confined in the State of Florida in direct violation of the laws and Constitution of the United States.

There exists substantive exceptional circumstances of a United States Sixth Amendment Constitutional violation, wherein, based on this Court 's findings in Allevne v. United States. 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), and astatutory minimum sentencing; the Florida Legislature created and continues to sustain a Florida Parole Statute §947.02; .007; .017; .13; .16(2); .165; .18; .20 (1987); that the Florida Commission on Offender Review [the Florida Parole Commission], continues to apply to Petitioner [and approximately 4,000 other current Florida Prisoners]; that provides authority to and sustains the Florida Parole Commission to continue aggravating petitioners [and others] Parole eligibility date by decades, for "elements of his crime, " not presented to a Jury, raised in the information or admitted to by Petitioner for purposes of aggravation at time of Parole eligibility; in direct CONFLICT with this Court. Petitioner having a liberty interest to Constitutional Parole eligibility under Florida Sentencing Statute §775.082(1) and (6) (1987), to Life with eligibility for parole after 25 years.

This creates a habeas corpus constitutional action as to whether Florida Parole Statute §947.02; .007; .017;. 13; .16(2); .165; .18; .20 (1987) is currently constitutional under the United States Constitution Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, as applied to Petitioner at time of Parole eligibility; and whether Petitioner is being confined in the State of Florida in violation of the laws and constitution of the United States?

Did the lower United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal Case No: 14-11099-C and District Courts, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, Tweed v. Rick Scott Governor, et. al. Case No: 3:14-CV-95-J-39-MCR and Tampa Division Tweed v. Rick Scott. Governor et. al. Case No: 8:14-CV- 217-T-23-MAP; commit error, under findings by this Court in Wilkerson v. Dotson. 125 S. Ct.

Whether the life portion of Florida Capital Criminal sentencing statute §775.082 (1) and (6) (1987) is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution