1013 users online (174 members and 839 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 147
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,532

    Misty's Supreme Court Filing SC10-1989

    I have found nothing about the new case other than it was initially filed then withdrawn, then refiled. Apparently the first attempt had some type of error; possibly a necessary accompanying document was omitted, or possibly something had to be filed elsewhere first, IDK.

    Earlier, B4 mentioned this might have something to do with Misty's 10-month incarceration in County Jail awaiting trial, with a bond so high it never could be met. I think B4 is on to something there. Clearly if Misty was a flight risk there would have had to be something filed to show why the state felt she was. And without that, couldn't Fields have gotten her bond reduced?

    The new case is clearly a complaint about her incarceration. It is not, IMO, about her conviction, because she didn't fight the charges. Since her sentence is not unlawful given it was a mandatory, about the only issue regarding incarceration would have to be something with County Jail. All IMO, of course...because I really don't have a clue, but Misty's bond seemed astronomical for non-violent charges.

    (I had posted this on the court updates thread but decided it was best to bring it over here because I find this filing interesting...and if it goes any further we might want to discuss it at length.)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by krkrjx View Post
    I have found nothing about the new case other than it was initially filed then withdrawn, then refiled. Apparently the first attempt had some type of error; possibly a necessary accompanying document was omitted, or possibly something had to be filed elsewhere first, IDK.

    Earlier, B4 mentioned this might have something to do with Misty's 10-month incarceration in County Jail awaiting trial, with a bond so high it never could be met. I think B4 is on to something there. Clearly if Misty was a flight risk there would have had to be something filed to show why the state felt she was. And without that, couldn't Fields have gotten her bond reduced?

    The new case is clearly a complaint about her incarceration. It is not, IMO, about her conviction, because she didn't fight the charges. Since her sentence is not unlawful given it was a mandatory, about the only issue regarding incarceration would have to be something with County Jail. All IMO, of course...because I really don't have a clue, but Misty's bond seemed astronomical for non-violent charges.

    (I had posted this on the court updates thread but decided it was best to bring it over here because I find this filing interesting...and if it goes any further we might want to discuss it at length.)
    I have always wondered why the bond for them all was so high. But the time for their attornies to ask for a bail reduction is long past. I'm assuming there never was a bail reduction hearing since the super-sleuthers here never posted about it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by krkrjx View Post
    I have found nothing about the new case other than it was initially filed then withdrawn, then refiled. Apparently the first attempt had some type of error; possibly a necessary accompanying document was omitted, or possibly something had to be filed elsewhere first, IDK.

    Earlier, B4 mentioned this might have something to do with Misty's 10-month incarceration in County Jail awaiting trial, with a bond so high it never could be met. I think B4 is on to something there. Clearly if Misty was a flight risk there would have had to be something filed to show why the state felt she was. And without that, couldn't Fields have gotten her bond reduced?

    The new case is clearly a complaint about her incarceration. It is not, IMO, about her conviction, because she didn't fight the charges. Since her sentence is not unlawful given it was a mandatory, about the only issue regarding incarceration would have to be something with County Jail. All IMO, of course...because I really don't have a clue, but Misty's bond seemed astronomical for non-violent charges.

    (I had posted this on the court updates thread but decided it was best to bring it over here because I find this filing interesting...and if it goes any further we might want to discuss it at length.)
    Got a link to the filing?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,532
    Quote Originally Posted by pharsin View Post
    Got a link to the filing?
    LINK AS PREVIOUSLY POSTED BY DR. KNOW? IN THE COURT UPDATE THREAD:


    From doing a quick search the SC10 part of the new case for Misty, and SC is Supreme Court.

    Here's a link to what has been filed with the Supreme Court (if the link doesn't take you there directly, search case number SC10-1989)

    http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket_search%20


    Wikipedia (Links)
    Habeas_corpus Habeas_corpus

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    40
    I dont know if this helps but, from what I have found out about this is:

    What requires for the Writ of Habeas corpus?
    Being held without being charged, or being held in excess of 90 days without any court action.

    With seeing this, I have to think that it has to do with her court date being changed or that the state is holding her without charging her. If they are holding without charging her then I have to pray and hope that its for what happened with Haleigh. But, I still dont think that. MOO I think it is because of her court date changing from Oct. to Jan. That would be 90 days without any court action.

    EDIT: After looking on the website, I did a search on the link provided and found if you put in Habeas corpus in the search bar you can find other cases and read the transcript. I found this interesting but, after reading all of that I am even more confussed on what she filed it for. I just want justice for Haleigh. It has been too long since she went missing.
    Last edited by loving mom of 2; 11-01-2010 at 02:05 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Midwest now OC forever
    Posts
    798
    Wasn't Misty moved from St. Johns to a Women's Correctional Facility?

    At the time, I thought that was strange. Usually, they stay in jail until they are sentenced. Although she was sentenced in the St. John's case, she has not been sentenced in the Putnam case. I thought she would be moved to Putnam, not prison.

    Just wondering if her attorney is arguing that by moving her to prison instead of Putnam, he does not have the access to his client to prepare for the Putnam case.
    This is my perspective and understanding of the situation based on the current information that I know......the final answer to the equation is the only question we are all asking ...the unknown pieces to the puzzle!!!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,532
    This action was initially filed 10/7/2010. Misty was not sentenced until 10/8. So...I am not sure this action has anything to do with her current incarceration but more likely it is raising issue with her being held in county jail for so many months. Possibly when Misty decided to plead rather than going to trial, she waived any rights she had to a speedy trial?

    Misty was charged so they cannot claim she was held without being charged. But still, she sat in jail for weeks on end with nothing happening on her charges. There were continuances and if those were motions by the defense, she cannot argue the delay. However, it the state asked for continuances, and her attorney objected, they might have a case for the writ of habeas corpus. I do believe, though, that Misty's attorney would have had to object to any motion for continuance by the state in order to preserve the right to appeal such a delay.

    I probably shouldn't even post this opinion since that's all it is...MY OPINION.

    ETA: OK...1Chump raises an interesting point. If Misty is being held in CLOSE custody solely because Putnam County has a detainer on her for her yet-to-be-sentenced cases, this action might at least in part pertain to the close custody status if the state requested her sentencing be delayed until January 2011. I do believe, however, that the petition for writ of habeas corpus might be about her lengthy stay in county jail, as the action was filed prior to her being moved to DOC Close Custody status. Again, this is MOO.
    Last edited by krkrjx; 11-01-2010 at 03:03 PM. Reason: ETA

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,843
    I really wonder what this could be about. I had looked up the McNeil guy,
    http://www.dc.state.fl.us/secretary/bio.html, and thought it might be about her getting out of prison for her next sentencing hearing, but then noticed, like krkrjx, it was originally filed before the sentencing hearing.

    This makes me want to go to law school so I can figure this stuff out.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,843
    Quote Originally Posted by 1Chump View Post
    Wasn't Misty moved from St. Johns to a Women's Correctional Facility?

    At the time, I thought that was strange. Usually, they stay in jail until they are sentenced. Although she was sentenced in the St. John's case, she has not been sentenced in the Putnam case. I thought she would be moved to Putnam, not prison.

    Just wondering if her attorney is arguing that by moving her to prison instead of Putnam, he does not have the access to his client to prepare for the Putnam case.
    BBM

    This seems really odd to me, too. The only things I could come up with is it costs more to house someone in the jail than the prison (is that even true??) and since Misty was sentenced already, and the next sentencing is 3 months away, this was just the best plan. ??

    I also think it's odd the state moved the sentencing to Jan. I just don't see Misty getting more than 25 years in Putnam, and I also don't see her getting sentenced to consecutive vs. concurrent, so I'm a little baffled why they wouldn't keep the Oct 19th date and just get it over with. I don't even see why they would go to the trouble to try to plead her case again, since IMO, the damage is already done with the SJC 25 year sentence, so it shouldn't even take more than a few minutes.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,843
    My interpretation of what I have read so far is if a writ of HC is granted, the court can set aside a conviction, and the defendent could go to trial again, but they can't reduce the sentence. It also seems to say a writ shouldn't happen until all appeals are exhausted, which leads me to think Fields will not be appealing this sentence, MOO.

    So, my guess right now is maybe Misty started talking to LE, and maybe the writ was filed prematurely, then withdrawn. Maybe this was a charge LE was willing to drop in exchange for useful information, but the sentencing came before the useful info, so the writ was filed to get the conviction set aside so the charge can be dismissed. (Maybe that's what the letter mentioned is about, the state saying they will drop this charge, and why they have moved sentencing, in case they are willing to drop some more charges.)

    All the above is my opinion only, and I also freely admit I don't have a clue what this is about.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,077
    I'm wondering if this has something to do with the information that Misty gave pertaining to the Haleigh case. If she's claiming that she gave all she knows, (I know, I know), then she could be claiming that LE didn't keep their end of a bargain, & somehow that led to her being wronged. The last we heard, she was pointing at Tommy, so it may have something to do with that...but Tommy was still pointing at Joe. I would think LE is wanting more than, 'go ask Tommy', so they're playing hardball. If her attorney has proof, (& I doubt he does), that Misty has nothing else to offer, then I can see this, but if he doesn't, why is he wasting valuable court time & money? & this is assuming this has something to do with Haleigh...but I think everything always has everything to do with Haleigh, so I'm more than a little short sighted. MOO.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,077
    being held without being charged...this has got to be about the Haleigh case. & I agree completely, but they'd better be willing to face the music. in other words, get ready to get charged. I hope this motion gets the ball to rolling. 1 way or another.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,532
    Misty is in prison for her St. Johns charge. She was convicted and sentenced, so there was no reason for her to remain in county custody. She has other charges in Putnam County to be sentenced on but would only be housed in Putnam if she had been acquitted of the St. Johns charge. IOW, rather than go free on acquittal, Putnam County would have detained her until sentencing. I expected Misty to remain in St. Johns custody until her sentencing in Putnam on 10/19, but once that date was pushed out to January I never expected her to stay in county custody.

    Misty pled Nolo in St. Johns in August. She was sentenced in October on that charge. That is not an unusual length of time from one court proceeding to the next.

    One thing for sure is once the Supreme Court issues their opinion on Misty's petition, that opinion will likely be available online.

    I am impatient, though. I want to know now what's going on, LOL. Any attorneys among us who can shed some light, that would be greatly appreciated, and TIA.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,843
    I wonder if this is the 'Jack White' filing the writ?


    http://www.lanierlawfirm.com/attorneys/jack_l_white.htm

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    I wonder if this is the 'Jack White' filing the writ?


    http://www.lanierlawfirm.com/attorneys/jack_l_white.htm
    I've been looking for him too, & this is the same guy I figured. He seems like an expert, so we'll soon see.

Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 84
    Last Post: 04-01-2010, 03:11 PM