GRIGGS v. STATE (2020)

Denied. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 291 (Fla. 2003) (“Although collateral estoppel generally precludes relitigation of an issue in a subsequent but separate cause of action, its intent, which is to prevent parties from rearguing the same issues that have been decided between them, applies in the postconviction context.”); 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)); see also Griggs v. State, 249 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Griggs v. State, 228 So. 3d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Griggs v. State, 222 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Griggs v. State, 187 So. 3d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Griggs v. State, 166 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Griggs v. State, 150 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Griggs v. State, 109 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Griggs v. State, 103 So. 3d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Griggs v. State, 73 So. 3d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Griggs v. State, 60 So. 3d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Griggs v. State, 42 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Griggs v. State, 36 So. 3d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Griggs v. State, 72 So. 3d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

PER CURIAM.