KAMAL WILLIAMS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
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.
[1] Habeas corpus cannot be used to litigate or relitigate issues that could have been, should have been, or were raised on direct appeal or in rule 3.850 proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“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.”
Court's statement of the controlling legal principle from Breedlove v. Singletary
Kamal Williams appealed a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County. The specific underlying facts are not detailed in this per curiam opinion.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habeas Corpus Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 20, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1286 Lower Tribunal No. F08-26940A ________________
Kamal Williams, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Altfield, Judge.
Kamal Williams, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and GORDO, and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See 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.”); White v. Dugger, 511 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. 1987) (“[H]abeas corpus is not a vehicle for obtaining additional appeals of issues which were raised, or should have been raised, on direct appeal or which were waived at trial or which could have, should have, or have been, raised in rule 3.850 proceedings.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McArthur Breedlove v. Singletary, 595 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1992)
- Beauford White v. Dugger, 511 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1987)