Florida Supreme Court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus as the issue was one of law instead it applied Res, Judicata to deny the Writ conflicting with relevant decisions of this court See, Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 7-8, 83 S. Ct. 1068, 10 L. Ed. 2d 148 (1963); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 317-319, 115 S. Ct. 851, 863 (1995), andFelkerv. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664-665, 116 S. Ct. 2333, 135 L. Ed. 2d 827 (1996). Because the previous decision was not on its merits,

"Your Petitioner was sentenced to what can be considered tantamount to a sentence under the wrong statutes in violation of due process, Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343, 346,65 L. Ed 2d 175,100 S. Ct. 2227 (1980)." This court shall grant the petition under the "Fundamental miscarriage of justice exception McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 392, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 185 L. Ed. 2d 1019 (2013); Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404, 113 S. Ct. 853, 122 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1993).

Whether the Florida Supreme Court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus despite applying Res Judicata