TAVARIS MACK
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.
A petitioner is procedurally barred from raising the same claim in a successive habeas corpus petition when the circumstances upon which the claim is based were known or should have been known at the time of the prior petition.
[1] A successive habeas corpus petition raising the same claim previously raised in an earlier habeas petition is barred when the circumstances upon which the claim is based…
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“Successive habeas corpus petitions seeking the same relief are not permitted nor can new claims be raised in a second petition when the circumstances upon which they are based were known or should have been known at the time the prior petition was filed.”
Court citing Johnson v. Singletary, 647 So. 2d 106, 109 (Fla. 1994) to establish the procedural bar.
Tavaris Mack sought an emergency writ of habeas corpus to discharge an active but unexecuted probation violation arrest warrant. Mack contended the wa…
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 Successive Habeas Petitions cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed January 14, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-2582 Lower Tribunal No. F22-19400 ________________
Tavaris Mack, Petitioner,
vs.
State of Florida, Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus.
Tavaris Mack, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for respondent.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ.
MILLER, J.
2
Petitioner, Tavaris Mack, seeks an emergency writ of habeas corpus discharging an active but unexecuted probation violation arrest warrant. In furtherance of relief, Mack primarily contends the warrant flows from an involuntary plea agreement procured by duress and coercive tactics on the part of the State. Although the Supreme Court has observed that a petition for writ of habeas corpus may be used “to attack future confinement and obtain future releases,” this court has rejected Mack’s argument in prior habeas proceedings.1 See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487 (1973). Under these circumstances, Mack is procedurally barred from raising his claim before us in the first instance. See Johnson v. Singletary, 647 So. 2d 106, 109 (Fla. 1994) (“Successive habeas corpus petitions seeking the same relief are not permitted nor can new claims be raised in a second petition when the circumstances upon which they are based were known or should have been known at the time the prior petition was filed.”) (citing Card v. Dugger, 512 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1987)); see also Moss v. Singletary, 705 So. 2d 947, 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (affirming an appeal from the trial court’s
3
denial of a successive petition for writ of habeas corpus under the same line of authority). We therefore deny the petition. But in so doing, we do not purport to extinguish Mack’s right to seek relief in the trial court. Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1973)
- Card v. Dugger, 512 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1987)