ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ
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 petitions cannot be used to challenge ineffective assistance of appellate counsel or to relitigate issues that were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal or in post-conviction proceedings.
[1] Habeas corpus petitions cannot be used to challenge ineffective assistance of appellate counsel or to obtain additional appeals of issues that were raised, should have be…
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 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.”
The court cited Zuluaga v. State to establish the fundamental limitation on habeas corpus petitions as a remedy for appellate counsel ineffectiveness.
Roberto Rodriguez filed a habeas corpus petition in the Third District Court of Appeal challenging the effectiveness of his appellate counsel.…
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 Ineffective Assistance Of Appellate Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
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).
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.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- J.B. Parker v. Dugger, 550 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1989)
- Owen v. Crosby, 854 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2003)
- Heldrado Zuluaga v. State, 32 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Lane Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher, 656 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Prettyman v. State, 951 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)