RODRIGUEZ v. STATE (2026)

Dismissed. See Owen v. Crosby, 854 So. 2d 182, 190 n.10 (Fla. 2003) (“An ineffective assistance of appellate counsel argument cannot be used as a means of relitigating an issue previously considered.”); Parker v. Dugger, 550 So. 2d 459, 460 (Fla. 1989) (“[H]abeas corpus petitions are not to be used for additional appeals on questions which could have been, should have been, or were raised on appeal or in a rule 3.850 motion ․”); Zuluaga v. State, Dep't. of Corr., 32 So. 3d 674, 676–77 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“Habeas corpus is not a vehicle for obtaining additional appeals of issues which were raised or should have been raised on direct appeal, or which could have been, should have been, or were raised in post-conviction proceedings.”); see also Towbridge v. State, 45 So. 3d 484, 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“It is reasonable to presume that when the court affirms an Anders[¹ ] appeal it has fully considered and rejected all potential issues that were apparent on the face of the record.”); Prettyman v. State, 951 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (denying petition for writ of habeas corpus based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to supplement the record in an Anders appeal because “it [was] incumbent upon petitioner to show prejudice,” including “the identification of specific errors that would be found in the untranscribed or excluded portion of the record”); 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.”).

FOOTNOTES

1.   Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

PER CURIAM.