Byron J. Tisdol, Etc. v. State of Florida

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 20, 2026.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D26-0695

Lower Tribunal No. F08-36251

________________

Byron J. Tisdol, etc.,

Petitioner,

vs.

State of Florida,

Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction–Habeas Corpus.

Ripley Law, PLLC, and Dan Ripley (Pinellas Park), for petitioner.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Daihana Chang, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Before SCALES, C.J., and MILLER and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Petition denied. See Tisdol v. State, 878 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), review dismissed, SC04-1811 (Fla. Sept. 17, 2004); Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1242 (Fla. 2004) (“[W]ith limited exceptions, habeas corpus relief is not available to obtain collateral postconviction relief because most claims can be raised by motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.”); Mills v. Dugger, 559 So. 2d 578, 579 (Fla. 1990) (“Habeas corpus is not to be used for additional appeals of issues that could have been, should have been, or were raised on appeal or in other postconviction motions.”); see also Parker v. State, 873 So. 2d 270, 278 (Fla. 2004) (“[T]he law of the case doctrine is narrower in application in that it bars consideration only of those legal issues that were actually considered and decided in a former appeal . . . .” (quoting Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 107 (Fla. 2001))).