Whether the Florida Supreme Court's decision infringes on the petitioner's constitutional right to meaningful review of their federal constitutional claim

QUESTION PRESENTED The decision of the Florida Supreme Court, from which the ; Florida State District Court of Appeal’s decision derives, is glaringly egregious and contrary to the holding of this Court, and a progeny of high courts of other states, that this court ruled on the merits of the underlying Eight Amendment claim in Virginia v. LeBlanc, 37 $§.Ct. 1726 (2017). The questions presented are: : 1. Does the Florida Supreme Court’s contrary and broad reading of LeBlanc infringe upon Petitioner’s Constitutional right to . have a meaningful review of his federal constitutional question, and adjudication thereof on the merits in accord with due process? 2. Does the Florida Supreme Court’s reliance on LeBlanc as a merits based decision to overturn a previous decision favorably ‘ resolving Petitioner’s Eight Amendment claim, unconstitutionally deprive him of the constitutional protection afforded by the Court’s previous decision? : i 3. Does the decision of the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Michel, 257 So.3d 3 (Fla. 2018), depart from the concepts of constitutional fairness, and judicial integrity particularly, where it is clear that the Court applied an egregious and objectively unreasonable analysis of the plan language of this Court in Virgina v. Le Blanc, to overturn a previous decision a minority of the Florida Supreme court, at that time, had opposed. ii