Roberto Rodriguez v. State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 8, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D26-0153
Lower Tribunal No. F21-16783
________________
Roberto Rodriguez,
Petitioner,
vs.
State of Florida,
Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction-Habeas Corpus.
Roberto Rodrigo, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Before MILLER, LOBREE, and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.

2
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.
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

3
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.”).