LADONNA FLORENCE
v.
SECRETARY, 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.
Habeas corpus cannot be used to relitigate issues raised on direct appeal or as a substitute for postconviction relief motions, and petitions must plead specific facts rather than conclusory allegations.
[1] Habeas corpus petitions must plead specific facts entitling the petitioner to relief; conclusory allegations are insufficient to permit judicial examination of the claims…
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”
Breedlove v. Singletary, 595 So. 2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1992)
Ladonna Florence filed a habeas corpus petition in the Third District Court of Appeal challenging her conviction. She raised issues that had already b…
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 September 17, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0709 Lower Tribunal Nos. F17-3115C, F17-3490 ________________
Ladonna Florence, Petitioner,
vs.
Secretary, Department of Corrections, et al., Respondents.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus.
Ladonna Florence, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for respondents.
Before MILLER, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.
GORDO, J.
2 Ladonna Florence (“Florence”) petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. It is well settled that “[h]abeas 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.” Breedlove v. Singletary, 595 So. 2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1992). Further, “habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for an appropriate motion seeking postconviction relief[.]” Harris v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114, 1115 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). In her petition, Florence provides conclusory allegations and raises issues that have already been considered and rejected by this Court on direct appeal. Additionally, she raises claims that she previously raised in her motion for post-conviction relief. We therefore deny the petition. See Breedlove, 595 So. 2d at 10 (“Using different grounds to reargue the same issue is . . . improper.”); Conahan v. State, 118 So. 3d 718, 734 (Fla. 2013) (“A habeas petition must plead specific facts that entitle the defendant to relief. Conclusory allegations have repeatedly been held insufficient by this Court because they do not permit the court to examine the specific allegations against the record.”). Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Barnard v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Conahan v. State, 118 So. 3d 718 (Fla. 2013)