state of florida et al., respondent(s),
TRANSCRIPT
- OR MA 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
ROBERT LEE ANDREWS,Petitioner, Case No.: SCl2-2651
DCA Case No.: 4D11-4677V. Ex Parte
STATE OF FLORIDA Et Al.,Respondent(s),
PETITIONER'S INITIAL BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
Robert Lee Andrews, Pro SeDC# 686323 / Dorm B4-207LSouth Bay Corr. Fac.600 U.S. Hwy. 27 SouthSouth Bay, FL 33493-7171
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE(S)
Table of Contents...........................................................................2
Table ofAuthorities.....................................................................3-4
Preliminary Statement...................................................................5
Petitioners Initial Brief on Jurisdiction................................................6
Statement And Facts to Procedural..................................................7-11
Statement To Magistrate Judge....................................................11-12
Records.....................................................................................13
Two Year Time Limit...................................................................13
Evidentiary Hearing..................................................................13-14
Acquittal/Summary Judgment........................................................15Point I.............................................................................15-22
Petitioner, by and through his Court Appointed Pre-trial Counsel'sPursuant to Rule 3.160(a) of the Fla. R. Crim. P., and hereby waived hisappearance and arraignment to contest by objections, challenging all swornand unsworn testimonies, evidence and eyewitnesses identifications on theinformation whereupon he now tenders unto the lower court a written plea ofnot guilty and respectfully demands trial by jury and further requests leaveof court to file within fifteen (15) days appropriate motions herein andreserves all objections arising under rule 3.140 (g) of the Fla. R. Crim. P. onAugust 9-31, 1994.
Conclusion.................................................................................23
Un-Notarized Oath.......................................................................23
Certificate of Service.....................................................................24
Certificate of Compliance...............................................................242
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Andrews v. State, 919 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).......................................... 15
Ballard v. State, 923 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2006)........................................................... 15
Barclay v. Wainwright, 444 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1984)............................................... 21
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985); ........................ 21
Fotopoulous v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C399
(11th Cir. February 14, 2008)............................................................................... 20
Hoffman v. State, 571 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1990). ....................................................... 11
Lockhart v. Fretwell, at 844 .................................................................................... M
State v. Weinberg, 780 So. 2d 214 (5th DCA 2001)................................................ 18
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)..................................................... 19
U.S. ex. Rel. Cross v. DeRobert's, 811 F. 2d 1008, 1016 (7th Cir. 1987)............... 18
White v. Singletary, 972 F. 2d 1218, 1220-21 (11th Cir. 1992)..............................
Statutes
§775.087(2)............................................................................................................... 7
§812.13(1)................................................................................................................. 7
Rules
3.140(g) Fla. R. Crim. P............................................................................................ 7
3.160(a) Fla. R. Crim. P ............................................................................................ 7
3
3.190(b)(1)(c)(2)(4)................................................................................................. 2A
3.850(d)................................................................................................................... 16
3.850(d). .................................................................................................................. 15
9.210........................................................................................................................25
Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(B)........................................................................... 14
Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D)................................................................................ 11
Constitutional Provisions
Art. I, § 9 of the Florida Constitution........................................................................ 6
Art.V., § 3(b)(1) , Fla. Const. .............................................................................. 14
Article I, § 9 and 10 of the Florida Constitution..................................................... 12
Fourteenth Amendment 6 12
4
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Petitioner, the Defendant in trial court and the appellant in the District Court of
Appeal, will be referred to in this Brief as "the Petitioner" or by proper name.
The Respondents, the State of Florida, the Fourth District Court of Appeal,
Appellee, in the District Court of Appeal, will be referred to in this Brief as "the
Respondent's, Appellee, or the State" or by proper name. The following symbols
will be used in this brief:
"T" will denote "Transcript."
5
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
ROBERT LEE ANDREWS,Petitioner, Case No.: Sc.4%si
DCA Case No.: 4D11-4677V. Ex Parte
STATE OF FLORIDA Et Al.,Respondent(s),
PETITIONER'S INITIAL BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
COMES NOW, the Petitioner, Robert Lee Andrews, pro-se, Pursuant to
Rule 3.850 Post-conviction motion, and Rules governing U.S. Constitution
fundamental unfair or unreliable, the rights, specific set forth in Art. I, § 9 of the
Florida Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, and in cases in state, federal and the
United States Supreme Court of Florida, and in initial brief on Jurisdiction for
immediate resolution in the merits to trial court summary denial of post-conviction
and the appeal court reviewing in the context under adversarial system that begin
to prevent affirmances in court orders and judgments rendered December 28, 2005,
and request this court acquit the instant case with prejudice and deny the
respondents petition in all respects.
6
STATEMENT AND FACTS TO PROCEDURAL
After having been originally charged on July 31, 1994 by information for
robbery with a firearm and possession of and carried a firearm, contrary to Fla.
Stat. §812.13(1) and (2)(a) and §775.087(2). (18' Deg. Fel., PBL) (Level 9) mad:
mg. Andrews' plead not guilty.
Petitioner, by and through his court appointed pre-trial counsel's pursuant to
Rule 3.160(a) Fla. R. Crim. P., and hereby waived his appearance and arraignment
to contest by objections challenging all sworn and unsworn testimonies, evidence
and eyewitnesses identifications on the information whereupon he now tenders
unto the lower court a written plea of not guilty and respectfully demands trial by
jury and further requests leave of court to file within fifteen (15) days appropriate
motions herein, and reserves all objections arising under Rule 3.140(g) Fla. R.
Crim. P., on August 9-31, September 1, 1994.
Petitioner was seized, falsely accused of the firearm and charged with the
alleged crime he did not commit against both State and United States law, and
brought before the magistrate judge.
Petitioner wanted to be present at all hearings that would be held in court
proceedings to contest by objections. Petitioner was discharged upon failure of the
respondents to file formal charges on the information. Later the same day, the
1 (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F)-(P)...ect., refers to the Appendix previously filed with the Clerk of Court.
7
petitioner was not present, respondent filed formal charges because previously
statement was not part of the court files, which was in error-case reset to August
31, 1994 at 1:30 PM by the presiding judge's order 0032 and 0034. First
appearance for petitioner was September 1, 1994, the order 0035 083194 signed by
William A. Bollinger, Judge presiding in this case2
The victim Shahid Delwar did not identify Andrews as the robber person
who shot him, he could not make a positive identification by photo line-up in this
case.
A motion was filed for Rudine Williamson tampering with evidence and
signed by pre-trial attorney docket 0003. Respondent's evidence presented at pre-
trial proceeding did not establish that Andrews shot the victim in this case.
Respondents (ex parte) petition, by Rudine Williamson written deponent
statement filed in case no.: DA94-002863(A) on October 20, 1994. That Robert
Andrews broke into her apartment and hid a gun in her bedroom. Williamson
turned the gun into authorities and Andrews was arrested.
On January 10, 1995 by Karen Simmons, official transcriptionist, that
Williamson called police department.
That Williamson found this gun in her house, would you all come get it. I
don't know who it belongs to.
2 The circuit court did not have jurisdiction to enter his judgment and sentence because its jurisdiction was neverproperly invoked as all crimes alleged and all the actions pertinent to those crimes occurred in a single judicial
circuit and thus, respondent did not have jurisdiction to prosecute the case.
8
That Williamson fingerprints are probably on the gun because she picked it
up. Id. At (193.-99,
The case proceeded to trial on April 7, 1995, the jury returned a guilty
verdict. Andrews did not testify. The court adjudicated the petitioner Robert
Andrews guilty as charged in the information and sentenced him to life in prison as
a habitual offender on April 20, 1995.
On April 6, 1995, James T. Carlisle, Circuit Court Judge held Rudine
Williamson in contempt of court for failure to obey subpoena from respondents on
April 4, 1995 at 9:30 AM, for the purpose of trial testimony in case no.: 94-07812
CF A02. Appellate counsel filed an initial brief, but Andrews received the
respondents Answer Brief (16) months later.
Petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence, and the appellate court
issued a per curiam affirmance on October 18, 1996. (4th DCA 95-1604)
On August 27, 2010, Andrews executed a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
The court treats the petition as a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule
3.850(d) Fla. R. Crim. P., raising (5) grounds for relief3:
1.)Impeachment evidence of witness, Rudine Williamson's prior inconsistent
statements, conducted by the assistant state attorney's investigative
interrogation, by detective John Van Houten.
3 Petitioner asserts that it should not be denied as untimely because it challenged the jurisdiction of the circuit court,a matter he argued that can be raised under these circumstances beyond the two year time limit.
9
2.)Impeachment evidence of witness's Martie Hedrick, alleged prior
inconsistent statements, conducted by the assistant state attorney's
investigative interrogation, by detective John Van Houten.
3.)Deposition of detective John Van Houten's prior inconsistent statement with
prosecutors investigative interrogation of the fabricated information related
to witness Martie Hedrick.
4.) Trial counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to challenge conflicting
statements, eyewitnesses identifications on the information, call and
confront the exculpatory bailee Rudine Williamson. Petition filed by
Williamson against petitioner Robert Andrews, to have compulsory process
for obtaining statements in his favor before the jury to the firearm, and to
have the assistance of counsel for the defense.
5.) The respondents Marc Shiner's argument to the jury was not a fair comment
on the evidence.
Here, the respondent was ordered to file a response and failed response and failed
to attach portions of the record.
The trial judge summarily denied the motion without attachments. In denying the
motion, trial judge made no factual findings, other than time barred. Andrews
appealed the summary denial of the motion to the Florida Fourth District Court of
Appeal. Andrews, in pro-se, filed an initial brief raising five (5) issues on appeal,
10
and in support thereof, to attach the appendix previously filed with the Clerk with
all preceding arguments and the record on appeal. Respondent did not file notice of
intent, no to file a response that Rudine Williamson would be a weak witness on
the petitioner's behalf because Williamson herself made conflicting statements
about the firearm to crime when it was investigated. This is an appeal from a
summary denial of a post-conviction motion under Rule 3.850. Under this court's
standard of review, the courts are obligated to reverse "unless the record shows
f..." Pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.
9.141(b)(2)(D) (emphasis added). Since the record does not refute the petitioner's
claim at this point, the court reverse the order. Hoffman v. State, 571 So. 2d 449
(Fla. 1990).
Here, without requiring a response from the respondents to attach specific
pages of the pre-trial, trial proceedings transcripts, the summary denial of the
motion was (per curiam affirmed on Nov. 7, 2012). This court is not precluded by
the Fourth District Court ofAppeal precedent from deciding the issues presented in
this brief, and is instead compelled by the authority of the United States Supreme
Court to grant it.
Is it a violation of the due process clause of the State or Federal
Constitutions for abandoned firearm of contraband in the premises of the
owner's apartment, Rudine Williamson, which was not traced to petitioner
11
Robert Andrews, no eyewitnesses identifications, photographs to firearm
location, fingerprint samples to the firearm and could have belonged to the
perpetrator to the crime who put it there, where the State need not prove and
the jury need not find that petitioner actually constructively possessed the
firearm for aggravated battery/firearm as the shooter and had guilty
knowledge?
Petitioner's conviction and lengthy prison sentence violate the due
process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I, § 9 and 10
of the Florida Constitution.
STATEMENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
It does appear that the presiding Honorable James T. Carlisle assigned to this
case was involved in all of Andrews' State Court proceedings. This court accused
petitioner at sentencing and the record would reflect by the transcript. Id. At 1141.
You shot him with a - what is it, Dirty Harry said about a 45, wasn't it? I am not
really worried about whether you get rehabilitated or anything else. I will
adjudicate you to be guilty of such.
Here, the Judge's statement is prejudiced and biased toward the accused
petitioner as the shooter. Moreover, the jury never found that Andrews actually
constructively possessed it and discharged a firearm on aggravated battery/firearm
to robbery in this case.
12
(A)No firearm was discovered on Andrews person
(B)No reliability of a given witness saw Andrews actually constructively
possess the firearm to the robbery.
RECORDS
Petitioner has previously filed an Appendix in paper form. The Appendix
contained the records on direct appeal and post-conviction appeal, as well as the
pleadings filed in those appeals, as set out in footnote 1.
TWO YEAR TIME LIMIT
As set out in footnotes 2, and 3 of the instant brief of the two year limitation
period.
EVIDENTIARY HEARING
No evidentiary hearing was held on Andrews Rule 3.850 motion for post-
conviction relief. No hearing was required as the respondent's record did not refute
Andrews claims unless directed to do so by the compelled authority of the United
States Supreme Court.
Petitioner asserts that an evidentiary hearing is necessary in connection with
the instant petition. In a proceeding instituted by an application for post-conviction
by petitioner in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, a determination
on the issues made by a state court shall be presumed to be incorrect.
13
Here, respondents arrest for Robert Andrews aggravated battery/firearm
eyewitnesses identifications to robbery on none capital punishment recommended
that juries be informed of the shortcomings of eyewitness identifications, included
their racial complications, in order to ensure that such evidence is not accepted
unquestionable.
Respondent never implemented to the jury photo line up reforms.
Respondents must rebut this presumption by proof, clear reports and convincing
evidence for aggravated battery/firearm and robbery to eyewitnesses to the alleged
crime to be used on July 31, 1994, and the Supreme Court may issue a Writ of
Certiorari compelling pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(B), which
parallels Art.V., § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const., based on determination of Appellate
procedure to the facts in light of the aggravated battery/firearm to robbery and
eyewitnesses identifications to the alleged crime, the decisions should speak to the
same point of law, in factual contexts of sufficient similarity to permit the
inference that the result in each case would have been different had the deciding
court employed the reasoning of the other court.
Petitioner asserts that the record in this case is sufficiently clear for this court
to resolve Andrew's claims on the basis of the record itself without further
evidentiary development. Respondent has not met their burden of proof in this
case.
14
ACQUIT
Pursuant to Ballard v. State, 923 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2006), and Andrews v.
State, 919 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 4'" DCA 2005), Andrews claims appear to be wholly
circumstantial.
ACQUITTAL/SUMMARY JUDGMINT
Acquittal of a petition for post-conviction relief is appropriate when it
plainly appears from the face of the petition and records that the petitioner is
entitled to relief. Petitioner alleges facts and procedural errors upon prima facie
case, exculpatory clause and bad fruit of the poisonous tree in the state post-
conviction process is addressable through all proceedings.
Ground 1-5 should be acquitted with prejudice and summary judgment
granted for petitioner Robert Andrews. The grounds 1-5, Andrews alleged that the
denial of his claims of circumstantial evidence; which logically lead to respondent
conclusion of factual statement, by the trial judge was insufficient to support
conviction. Petitioner asserts that grounds 1-5 should be acquitted with prejudice.
This court should reverse the judgment and sentence and remand with directions to
exonerate and discharge petitioner Robert Andrews in this case.
Andrews has alleged that this was a circumstantial evidence case in the post-
conviction process and wrongfully convicted, this claim does raise a constitutional
violation. Andrews attacks the rule 3.850(d) proceeding under grounds 1-5 and his
15
detention. Respondents has engaged in misconduct with constructive knowledge,
reports and possession to the materials, mislaid evidence withheld by other state
agents, which included Miranda warning self-incrimination, law enforcement
officers reports in this case.
(A)The owner of the premises is exculpatory, Rudine Williamson, which a
planted firearm was found, acts as bailee, and has the title interest, where
declarant was available to testify.
(B)The firearm is mislaid when it is intentionally put somewhere, but then
forgotten by James Jackson. Andrews v. State, 919 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA
2005).
(C)Firearm is abandoned when the owner discarded it without intending to
reclaim it by filed reports in this case.
Petitioner "has identified the specific acts and omissions of counsel's that form the
basis for all his claims of pre-trial, trial ineffective assistance." Trial counsel's
proceedings failure to call exculpatory bailee, Rudine Williamson, to testify to the
firearm, this claim is sufficient. Id. At (T-74-77).
"Evidence about the testimony of Rudine Williamson must generally be
presented in the form of actual testimony by petition filed and Williamson affidavit
to the firearm and the alleged crime on July 29, 1994."
16
Petitioner Robert Andrews has shown and presented, substantiating the
proposed exculpatory testimony ofRudine Williamson.
"The evidence was proof a sworn petition, affidavit and recorded depositions
form Rudine Williamson and James Jackson potential witnesses to the firearm
stating to what they would have testified to."
Andrews presented transcripts of actual sworn under oath testimonies and
the affidavits of alleged testimony, by and through Rudine Williamson and James
Jackson to the Clerk of Court. Here, Andrews has made the requisite factual
showing in this case. The circumstantial evidence will sustain his claims of
ineffective assistance of pre-trial and trial counsel's proceedings. Additionally,
Andrews has provided substantial demonstration that the two exculpatory
testimonies would add facts to the firearm and alleged crime that would exculpate
him.
Andrews has provided a set forth who the persons were, to what they would
have testified to, the firearm and alleged crime, that their testimonies would have
been admissible and that they were available to testify at evidentiary hearings and
respectfully demands exoneration in this case.
Andrews' case is sufficient. As to counsel's alleged failure to investigate this
case and claims is also likely sufficient. Petitioner challenging the attorney's
investigation of the case, and would show the information that would have been
17
obtained from the investigation and assuming it admissibility in court, would have
produced a different result. U.S. ex. Rel. Cross v. DeRobert's, 811 F. 2d 1008,
1016 (7* Cir. 1987) (the focus of the Strickland inquiry must be on what
information would have produced a different result); the firearm would have
resulted, and how the outcome of the case would have been altered). State v.
Weinberg, 780 So. 2d 214 (5'h DCA 2001). Petitioner should not be held criminally
liable for actions which have broken the law, because the respondents acted in an
"inappropriate" and "unfair" manner. Respondent withheld exculpatory
agreements to the firearm and knowingly permitted false testimony by Robert
Smith, Martie Hedrick, Porsha Robinson, John Van Houted, Rudine Williamson,
and James Jackson. Jackson had planted "firearm" at the apartment. Respondents
intentional error and a breach ofprofessional ethics.
(A)Petitioner has a human personatinterest and legal right under consideration;
(B)Has personal interest which trial and pre-trial proceedings was affected by
the outcome;
(C)Is prejudiced and biased toward the petitioner information caused by Rudine
Williamson and James Jackson's wrongful acts. As will be set forth below, in
order to present a sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel's
pursuant to Strickland, petitioner alleged and established both deficient
performance and prejudice. Ground 4 is sufficient and should be acquitted
18
with prejudice. Ground 1-5 should be acquitted with prejudice and summary
judgment granted for petitioner. The Supreme Court in Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), established a two part test for determining
whether a convicted person is entitled to relief on the ground that his counsel
rendered ineffective assistance.
The first prong of the Strickland test requires that the defendant demonstrate that
counsel's performance was deficient and "fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness." Strickland , 466 U.S. 688.
The test has nothing to do with what the best lawyers would have done.
Not is the test even what most good lawyers would have done.
Petitioner asks only whether some reasonable lawyer at the pre-trial and
trial counsel have acted, in the circumstances, as defense counsel's acted at court
proceedings.
Courts also should at the start presume effectiveness and should always
avoid second guessing with the benefit ofhindsight. White v. Singletary, 972 F. 2d
1218, 1220-21 (1 l th Cir. 1992) (Citation Omitted).
The second prong of the Strickland test requires the defendant to show that
the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Id. At 687.
The prejudice prong of the test does not focus solely on mere outcome
determination. Lockhart v. Fretwell, at 844.
19
Rather, to establish prejudice a criminal defendant must show that counsel's
deficient representation rendered the result of the pre-trial and trial counsel's
fundamentally unfair and unreliable. Id. At (T-74-77).
Finally, in determining whether any deficient performance has prejudiced a
defendant, the reviewing court must consider the totality of the evidence before the
Judge or Jury. Fotopoulous v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 21 Fla. L.
Weekly Fed. C399 (11th Cir. February 14, 2008).
Whether Rudine Williamson had been charged with tampering or not, this
testimony would have clearly showed common scheme and motive, as well the
entire context out ofwhich the criminal liable actions occurred.
In the instant case,...., there is no photographs to the firearm location.
("Evidence necessary to describe the manner in which a criminal offense took
place or how it came to light is generally admissible as mislaid evidence even
though it would be objectionable as prior bad act evidence because it is
"inextricably 'intertwined' with the underlying crime.")
Trial counsel's court proceedings performance was deficient for failing to
locate, subpoena and do a, call for Rudine Williamson, Porsha Roberson, James
Jackson, and Shahid Delwar, eyewitnesses identifications act, the persons who
purportedly confessed to the firearm of which petitioner was convicted. Petitioner
20
further asserts that based upon the circumstantial evidence. Andrews is entitled to
relief.
Respondents had no proof, eyewitness's identification, tape recording to the
crime and photo line-up records to the 911 call by Rudine Williamson's word.
Petitioner further asserts that based upon the circumstantial evidence of guilt
presented at pre-trial and trial proceedings, as set forth above under ground 1-5,
Andrews has provided, and showed, establish the deficient performance rendered
the result of his trial court proceedings fundamentally unfair and unreliable.
Moreover, petitioner is entitled to the effective assistance of trial counsel's and
appellate counsel Robert Friedman. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985); Barclay
v. Wainwright, 444 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1984).
It is Rudine Williamson and James Jackson Exculpatory clause instead of
going to petitioner Robert Andrews trial to testify in proceedings.
The Respondent managed to work out an agreement with Williamson and
Jackson at his plea hearing; instead of proceeding to trial and come forward to the
evidentiary hearing of both parties agree to the respondents basic theory of the
case.
"The agreed upon Exculpatory Clause."
(A) A provision in the contract excusing one or both parties from the legal
consequences of his/her or their actions and negligence.
21
Of course, by agreeing to the respondents basic theory of the case there will be no
trial or evidentiary hearing testimony appearances, no confrontation by the accused
petitioner Robert Andrews or cross-examination.
Basically, it's no testifying because of the prior inconsistent statement with
respondents investigation when Rudine Williamson made conflicting statements
about the firearm. Williamson can not make any corrections to the incorrect
statements on respondents behalf, on the issues of the firearm by (ex parte)
petition.
Those are the basic facts of this case.
The denial of ground 1-5 by the trial judge was not reasonable. Andrews has
established both deficient performance and prejudice. The petitioner Robert
Andrews is entitled to relief. Petitioner alleged that prior inconsistent statements as
substantive evidence in the context of a motion to acquit the misleading hearsay
information arising under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(b)(1)(c)(2)(4).
22
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, based on the above, petitioner request this court acquit the
instant petition for post-conviction relief with prejudice and grant summary
judgment for petitioner.
RespectfullySubmitted,
/s/ se pwRobert Lee Andrews, Pro-seDOC No. 686323 / B4-207LSouth Bay Corr. Fac.P.O. Box 7171South Bay, FL 33493-7171
UN-NOTARIZED OATH
I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the forgoing and that the
facts stated in it are true and correct.
Dated this l_ day of m<xe, , 2013.
/s/Robert Lee Andrews, Pro-se
23
SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY, that a copy hereofhas been furnished to the Office of
the Attorney General, 1515 N. Drive, 9th FÌOOr , West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-
3432, this L_ day of m#e h , 2013.
/s/Robert I ee Andrews, Pro-seDOC No. 686323 / B4-207LSouth Bay Corr. Fac.P.O. Box 7171South Bay, FL 33493-7171
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this brief complies with font requirements of Fla.
R. App. P. 9.210.
/s/Robert Lee Andrews, Pro-se
24
FILEDTHOMA S 0. HALL
20l3 MAR I3 PH I: 49
$UprE!NE ÉOurt of floribauRL suPRait couRI
THOMAS D. HALL
CLERK
SUSAN DAVIS MORLEY
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERKKRYS GODWIN
STAFF ATTORNEY
Office of the Clerk500 south Duval street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927BY
PHONE NUMBER (850) 488-0125
www.floridasupremecourt.org
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE
January 10, 2013
RE: ROBERT LEE ANDREWS vs. STATE OF FLORIDA
CASE NUMBER: SCl2-2651Lower Tribunal Case Number(s): 4D11-4677, 1994CF007812AXXLower Tribunal Filing Date: 11/8/2012
The Florida Supreme Court has received the following documents reflecting a filingdate of 11/8/2012.
Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction (seeking review of the order issued by theFourth District court of Appeal issued November 7, 2012, re: appellant's priorpost-conviction filings)
The Florida Supreme Court's case number must be utilized on all pleadings andcorrespondence ñied in this cause. Moreover, ALL PLEADINGS SIGNED BY ANATTORNEY MUST INCLUDE THE ATTORNEY'S FLORIDA BAR NUMBER.
FOR GENERAL FILING INFORMATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERNO. AOSC04-84, PLEASE VISIT THE CLERK'S OFFICE WEBSITE AThttp://www.floridasupremecourt.org/elerk/index.shtml
tgcc:ROBERT LEE ANDREWSHON. PAMELA JO BONDIHON. MARILYN BEUTTENMULLER, CLERK