Daniel Brian Masson v. Florida
CriminalProcedure
Whether the petitioner's conviction for violating Florida Statute 827.071 (5) (a) is illegal due to lack of evidence, falsified transcripts, and violations of due process
QUESTIONS PRESENTED: Petitioner has been convicted of violating Florida Statute 827.071 (5) (a) (2016), which is classified as a child abuse offense involving child sexual performance. However, the State prosecution has not provided a single fact for the record proving the Petitioner is guilty of the crime. Petitioner’s conviction is illegal. The Florida Second District Court of appeals denied the Petitioner’s motion to correct the record when he clearly demonstrated in the motion how his pre-trial hearing transcripts had been falsified. The fraud in the transcripts needs to be investigated and refusal by appellate court to correct the record was a violation of the Petitioner’s rights guaranteeing due process of the law under the 5" and 14" Amendments. Petitioner’s Public Defender submitted a pretrial motion to suppress evidence intended to challenge the validity of a search warrant served at Petitioner’s residence. These motions requested the reviewing court to determine whether 5 images of children obtained from a law enforcement investigation of the Petitioner amounted to child pornography and were therefore a probable cause to issue the warrant. However, those 5 images were not included within the four _ corners of the warrant’s supporting affidavit. Rather, the image descriptions were. The magistrate heard and denied the motion on the grounds that the 5 images Page 2 amounted to probable cause. Furthermore, the magistrate stated nothing for the é record how the images met the criteria of child pornography. The Florida Second District court of Appeals affirmed this ruling without opinion. | The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling denying a motion to suppress statements when the Petitioner’s record and argument on appeal showed that an interrogation recording was potentially fraudulent and how the judge did nothing to fact find as he was supposed to.