Misty's Supreme Court Filing SC10-1989

Discussion in 'Haleigh Cummings' started by krkrjx, Nov 1, 2010.

  1. krkrjx

    krkrjx Comfortably Numb

    Messages:
    7,044
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have found nothing about the new case other than it was initially filed then withdrawn, then refiled.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. Loading...


  3. Owlface

    Owlface New Member

    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  4. pharsin

    pharsin New Member

    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Got a link to the filing?
     
  5. krkrjx

    krkrjx Comfortably Numb

    Messages:
    7,044
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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


    Wikipedia (Links)
    Habeas_corpus Habeas_corpus
     
  6. loving mom of 2

    loving mom of 2 New Member

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  7. 1Chump

    1Chump New Member

    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  8. krkrjx

    krkrjx Comfortably Numb

    Messages:
    7,044
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  9. Lanie

    Lanie New Member

    Messages:
    2,843
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.:waitasec:
     
  10. Lanie

    Lanie New Member

    Messages:
    2,843
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Lanie

    Lanie New Member

    Messages:
    2,843
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. :crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:
     
  12. dodie20

    dodie20 New Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  13. dodie20

    dodie20 New Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  14. krkrjx

    krkrjx Comfortably Numb

    Messages:
    7,044
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  15. Lanie

    Lanie New Member

    Messages:
    2,843
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  16. dodie20

    dodie20 New Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  17. Kat

    Kat Kind words do not cost much

    Messages:
    17,195
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/florida/statutes/florida_statutes_title_vi_chapter_79

    Florida statute about this linked directly above.

    She's saying (through her lawyer that her constitutional rights were violated?).

    http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm
    A bit technical but can be skimmed to get the gist.

    This is a general form for the writ:

    http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO241.pdf


    From what I can tell it makes no difference on how she pled or if she was convicted. She is asserting that her constitutional rights were violated (haven't seen what was filed so we don't know which one exactly have been named by amendment).

    She wants out is all I can tell. JMHO (not a lawyer or work in the legal field so I will defer to any of those that do that come and post after me).
    JMHO.
     
  18. MissJames

    MissJames a yellowflutterby changed my life : )

    Messages:
    6,552
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This case drives me nuts,so I haven't been here in awhile.Can someone remind me how LE obtained the video of the drug deal that got Misty and Ron charged? Did LE get a warrant and place a video cam in the car? Or an informant? Was there an undercover cop in the drug deal?
    Thanks
     
  19. twall

    twall New Member

    Messages:
    5,011
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was an undercover operation.

    Here is a link to the PCSO press release on it.

    http://pcso.us/2010-1-20-a
     
  20. bessie

    bessie Administrator Staff Member Administrator Moderator

    Messages:
    31,702
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think so. I posted this in the other thread last week. Jack F. White, Jr. was the attorney of record in several appeals cases I found from the 60's and 70's. He's listed as ineligible in the Florida Bar directory, which might mean he no longer practices due to his age.

    Jack F. White, III comes up in google searches, but he's not listed as a member of the Florida Bar.
     
  21. bessie

    bessie Administrator Staff Member Administrator Moderator

    Messages:
    31,702
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're right, Kat. The writ means only that Misty is making a claim that her constitutional rights have been violated. I've chosen not to speculate because there are so many possibilities, but I am keeping an eye on the FLSC site for a brief to be posted.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice