agency.”). The State did not seek conditions of release under rule 3.212(d) prior to our issuance of McCray. Contrary to Mr. McCray’s position, however, the law of the case did not preclude the State from raising the argument for the first time following issuance of McCray. The law of the case doctrine requires “that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings.” Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001) (citing Greene v. Massey, 384 So.2d 24, 28 (Fla. 1980)). “The law of the case doctrine applies only to issues actually considered and decided in a prior appeal involving the same case.” Bloco, Inc. v. Porterfield Oil 380 So.2d 449, 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (<HOLDING>). Nor did the res judicata doctrine stop the
holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal holding that a claim not raised before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered by this court holding that mandate did not preclude the trial court from considering unconscionability argument on remand because that issue had not been decided by the trial court nor considered by this court in the first appeal holding that a letter utilized by the appellant in his argument would not be considered on appeal because it was not properly before the trial court