ISMAEL SANCHEZ

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA

PER CURIAM.

Denied.

See Sanchez v. State, 272 So. 3d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); 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); see also Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1245 (Fla. 2004) (“The remedy of habeas corpus is not available in Florida to obtain the kind of collateral postconviction relief available by motion in the sentencing court pursuant to rule 3.850.”) (citation omitted); Mills v. Dugger, 574 So. 2d 63, 65 (Fla. 1990) (“[H]abeas corpus is not to be used ‘for obtaining additional appeals of issues which were raised, or should have been raised, on direct appeal . . . or which could have, should have, or have been raised in’ prior postconviction filings.”) (citation omitted).