Filed: Jun. 03, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 03, 2013
Summary: ORDER PATRICIA C. FAWSETT, District Judge. Petitioner initiated this action for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254 (Doc. No. 1). Upon consideration of the petition, the Court ordered Respondents to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted. Thereafter, Respondents filed a response to the petition for writ of habeas corpus in compliance with this Court's instructions and with the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Summary: ORDER PATRICIA C. FAWSETT, District Judge. Petitioner initiated this action for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254 (Doc. No. 1). Upon consideration of the petition, the Court ordered Respondents to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted. Thereafter, Respondents filed a response to the petition for writ of habeas corpus in compliance with this Court's instructions and with the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District ..
More
ORDER
PATRICIA C. FAWSETT, District Judge.
Petitioner initiated this action for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254 (Doc. No. 1). Upon consideration of the petition, the Court ordered Respondents to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted. Thereafter, Respondents filed a response to the petition for writ of habeas corpus in compliance with this Court's instructions and with the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (Doc. No. 11). Petitioner filed a reply (Doc. No. 14) to the response.
Petitioner alleges one claim for relief in his habeas petition: his conviction for "trafficking controlled substance more than 14>28 grams" should be vacated because section 893.13, Florida Statutes is unconstitutional as a result of the decision in Shelton v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corrs., 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (hereinafter referred to as "Shelton I").
Petitioner argues in his habeas petition that he is serving a sentence of "10 years followed by 34 months," and he asserts that his conviction violates his "fourth, fifth, sixth and fourteenth amendment" rights based on the holding in Shelton I.1 In Shelton I, the district court found, among other matters, that section 893.13, Florida Statutes violated due process and was unconstitutional on its face.
However, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently entered an opinion reversing Shelton I on the basis that there had been no showing that the Florida courts unreasonably applied clearly established federal law by upholding the statute. See Shelton v. Sec'y Dep't of Corrs., 691 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2012) (hereinafter referred to as "Shelton II"). Thus, the district court's decision in Shelton I affords Petitioner no benefit because that decision was reversed on appeal in Shelton II. Since there is no basis for relief in this case, the instant petition must be denied.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) filed by Javier Rodriguez Cordova is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and is directed to close this case.
3. This Court should grant an application for certificate of appealability only if the Petitioner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.2 Accordingly, a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED in this case.
DONE AND ORDERED.
