LEE v. STATE (2019)

Denied. See Lee v. State, 229 So. 3d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), review denied, SC17-633, 2017 WL 1315790 (Fla. Apr. 10, 2017), review denied, SC17-840, 2017 WL 1882516 (Fla. May 9, 2017), and cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 104, 199 L.Ed.2d 65 (2017); see also Breedlove v. Singletary, 595 So. 2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1992) (“Habeas corpus is not a second appeal and cannot be used to litigate or relitigate issues which could have been, should have been, or were raised on direct appeal.”) (citing Porter v. Dugger, 559 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1990); Clark v. Dugger, 559 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1990)); Bueno v. Bueno de Khawly, 677 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (The “doctrine [of law of the case states] that those points of law adjudicated in a prior appeal are binding in order to promote stability of judicial decisions and to avoid piecemeal litigation.”) (citation omitted); Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher, 656 So. 2d 178, 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“A per curiam decision of the appellate court is the law of the case between the same parties on the same issues and facts, and determines all issues necessarily involved in the appeal, whether mentioned in the court's opinion or not.”) (citations omitted).

PER CURIAM.