Furman D. Livingston, Sr. v. Department of Corrections

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 27, 2025·No. 3D2025-1507·Published

Opinion

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. 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.”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Furman D. Livingston, Sr. v. Department of Corrections, (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

Furman D. Livingston, Sr. v. Department of Corrections (Furman D. Livingston, Sr. v. Department of Corrections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Breedlove v. Singletary
595 So. 2d 8 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Hurst v. Florida
577 U.S. 92 (Supreme Court, 2016)