Legality of 15-year state prison sentence following probation violation

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Petitioner humbly calls upon this Court to test the legality of his present 15 year state prison sentence which stemmed from violating probation, a probation that followed a different state prison sentence. All of which came from one (1) criminal scheme, for which the State has now . created three (3) sentences for. Petitioner will hereby prove beyond any doubt that there is no statutory authority to add a sentence term of 14 years probation, following a statutory legal sentence of 6 years state prison, DOC, at the time of Petitioner's original sentence. Thereby, rendering such probation void, and also rendering it as a multiple punishment. Thereby, rendering his “present 15 year state prison DOC sentence void” as it is a re-sentence for violating said void probation. This is in violation of U.S.C.A. 5, and 14, and Fla. Const., Art. 1. Sec. 9. The Petitioner will hereby prove to this court in extreme detail, and by every angle, that beyond any doubt; “his present 15 year sentence is voidable”, “as it should never have been”, his present sentence is stemmed from violating a probation, “that had no statutory authority”, to be placed against him in the first place, thereby, rendering such probation void. i . Furthermore, the Petitioner will prove to this court that the Florida Supreme Court used an “unreasonable application” and also “contrary to” U.S. Supreme Court ruling's in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S. Ct. 2012, 23 L. Ed. 2D 656 (1969), and Roberts v. U.S., 64 S. Ct. 113 (1943) (which were discussing the Probation Act of Congress.) Furthermore, Petitioner will prove to this court, that it has been illegal to apply such a combined sentencing scheme of probation following a state prison sentence with “no withholding or suspending of part of sentence to allow for the probation” since 1995. For over 25 years now, the state simply refuses to accept that the foundation for their combined sentencing scheme is “based on bad case law", that there is no statutory authority for it. Which is in direct violation of Petitioner's U.S. Constitutional rights for Due Process, and for multiple punishments. U.S.C.A. 5, and 14. Enforceable in Florida under Fia. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 9. Petitioner also calls upon the laws of what is “orally pronounced in court by the judge”, bound his 6 year state prison sentence, and that this sentence, was the only statutory legal sentence; at the time of his original sentence, for one criminal event. i That since this sentence was served in full, and he was released from state prison (DOC), Thereby, this sentence is finished and closed. There can be no alterations, no time added, nor can this sentence be erased and re-sentenced over it, “as if it never was there”, as U.S. Constitutional Laws for double jeopardy forbid such action. U.S.C.A. 14, and Art. 1, Sec. 9 of Fla. Constitution. Furthermore, when Petitioner was originally sentenced, the court called upon the state's “Ms. Smith” (the Prosecutor), to “outline the plea agreement in the case”. Where the state called for 6 years in state prison. Ms. Smith: “Your Honor, in exchange for guilty pleas to all of the counts as charged, the state is going to recommend a downward departure sentence of six years in prison, the Department of Corrections.” (see attached exhibit 1, pg. 5) *sentence #1 Then the state proceeds to add a sentence term of probation, of which by statutory law of § 921.187, and by rule 3.790, and by even the statutory law for the “only” legal split sentence in Florida § 984.012, is illegal to add such probation, following a state prison sentence. Therefore, this probation was void from birth. soe Court (Ms. Smith — Prosecutor): “Followed by fourteen years of probation” (see exhibit 1, pg. 5) *effectively creating sentence #2 as the only way this could be, iii would be straight probation, yet still no Statutory Authority. So when Judge Jack Cook, orally pronounced sentence upon Petitioner, the 6 year prison