Today (Feb 8) our office filed two responses to the Petition for Determination of Status as a Wrongfully Incarcerated Person filed on behalf of Clemente Javier Aguiree-Jarquin.

The first pleading was a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for failure to file in a timely manner.  Section 961.03(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to be filed within 90 days after the order vacating the conviction and sentence becomes final.  The Florida Supreme Court issued the mandate for a new trial November 17, 2016, the date the order became final. Mr. AGUIRRE-JARQUIN was represented by numerous competent and experienced attorneys at the time of the mandate, and had continuous legal representation during the 90 day time period. Well established case law does not provide any extension of the filing period as documented in our Motion to Dismiss

The second pleading was a Response to the Petition as required by Section 961.03(2), Florida Statutes, in the event the court denies the Motion to Dismiss.  Under Section 961.03(2), the State only has only two options.  The first option requires the State to certify to the Court it agrees that there is verifiable and substantial evidence of actual innocence, no further criminal proceedings in the case can or will be initiated by the State, and that no questions of fact remain as to the petitioner’s incarceration.  That the State cannot do.  

As detailed in the State’s Response, there is still substantial evidence to rebut Mr. AGUIRRE-JARQUIN’s claim of actual innocence. As a result the State is compelled to contest the Petition as required by option two. Contrary to Mr. AGUIRRE-JARQUIN’s assertion, the entry of the Nolle Prosequi by the State is not conclusive proof of innocence but rather was a confirmation by the State, that due to recent evidence challenging the credibility of an alibi witness, the State could not proceed at this time.

State Attorney Phil Archer made the following statement:  “The Florida Statute that the Petitioner and his attorneys are trying to use to obtain compensation from the State of Florida does not apply in this case. Without a change to the existing law, I am obligated to contest the petition, providing an opportunity for the Court to rule if this is an appropriate avenue to address their demands for compensation.”