FURMAN D. LIVINGSTON, SR.
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.
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.
Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before Ring v. Arizona, and habeas corpus cannot be used to relitigate issues that could have been raised on direct appeal.
[1] Hurst v. …
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 citing Breedlove v. Singletary, 595 So. 2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1992)
Furman D. Livingston, Sr. filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction or sentence. The Department of Corrections opposed the…
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 Ring V. Arizona Retroactivity cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 27, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1507 Lower Tribunal No. F09-2160 ________________
Furman D. Livingston, Sr., Petitioner,
vs.
Department of Corrections, et al., Respondents.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus.
Furman D. Livingston, Sr., in proper person.
Daniel Andrew Johnson (Tallahassee), for respondent Department of Corrections.
Before EMAS, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
We deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Wainwright v. State, 411 So. 3d 392, 399-401 (Fla. 2025) (holding: “Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before the issuance of Ring [v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002)]”; further holding that Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024) does not apply retroactively); see also 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.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hurst v. Florida., 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016)
- Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (U.S. 2024)
- Wainwright v. State, 411 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 2025)