fraud has entered into the case. Sullivan v. Askew, 348 So.2d 312, 315 (Fla.) (quoting 59 Am.Jur.2d Pardon and Parole § 43 (1971)) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 878, 98 S.Ct. 232, 54 L.Ed.2d 159 (1977). 5 . We have addressed this issue in similar cases at least twice before but in mandamus petitions that resulted in unpublished orders, not published opinions. See Henninger v. Chiles, 676 So.2d 413 (Fla.1996); Tal-Mason v. Chiles, 621 So.2d 1066 (Fla.1993). 6 . See generally Gwong v. Singletary, 683 So.2d 109, 114 (Fla.1996) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 31, 101 S.Ct. 960, 965, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981), for the proposition that "it is the effect, not the form, of the law that determines whether it is ex post facto.”); Dugger v. Williams, 593 So.2d 180, 181 (Fla.1991)
holding that the ex post facto clause did not apply because the civil contempt citation was not punitive holding that revocation of medical license does not violate the ex post facto clause holding that the ex post facto clause  has no application to deportation holding that the supreme courts ex post facto precedents do not clearly establish that amended section 29336 violates the ex post facto clause recognizing general rule that ex post facto provision does not apply to purely procedural matters