Court Filings

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the county court’s denial of appellant Evan Neil Brooks’s motion to suppress evidence seized after a traffic stop. An officer on foot patrol in a crowded entertainment district observed Brooks accelerate, drive faster than surrounding traffic, and pass another vehicle by entering the opposite lane near many pedestrians. The court held those facts, viewed in context, provided probable cause to stop Brooks for careless driving under section 316.1925(1), and the officer’s observations of impairment after the stop supported Brooks’s DUI arrest. The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s factual findings and reviewed legal conclusions de novo.

The Third District Court of Appeal issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 29, 2026, affirming the judgment of the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court in the appeal brought by Walter B. Campbell. The appeal proceeded under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). No published opinion or extended reasoning is provided in the document; the court simply states the disposition as "Affirmed."

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal appeal brought by Oliver Thomas. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from decisions of the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County (Judge Richard Hersch). The opinion is per curiam, filed April 29, 2026, and states simply 'Affirmed.' No further reasoning or discussion appears in the opinion text provided.

The Third District Court of Appeal considered an appeal by Norman Williams from a Miami-Dade County circuit court decision. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appellate court, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No published opinion or extended reasoning appears in the filed entry; the judgment simply affirms the trial court's disposition and notes the decision is not final until any timely rehearing motion is resolved.

The Third District Court of Appeal reviewed a criminal appeal by Jose D. Alcazar from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County under Florida appellate rules. The panel, in a brief per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's judgment. No opinion explaining the court's reasoning or the issues decided was published; the decision was entered on April 29, 2026, subject to any timely motion for rehearing.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal appeal brought by Drakar Lamar Smith against the State of Florida. The opinion, filed April 29, 2026, is per curiam and brief: the court announced its disposition as "Affirmed" without published reasoning in this short opinion. The decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Justin Pantzer's Florida Rule 3.800 postconviction motion. The panel relied on recent Florida precedent holding that a 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Erlinger) — even if a change in the law — does not apply retroactively, so Pantzer's claim based on that decision fails. The court cited Wainwright v. State and related Florida authority in reaching its decision and noted that the opinion is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of William Bernard White’s plea in bar asserting immunity under Georgia’s 9-1-1 Medical Amnesty Law (OCGA § 16-13-5). White was arrested on an outstanding probation-violation warrant after a 911 call reported an apparently unconscious driver; paramedics found no medical emergency, and a search incident to arrest uncovered fentanyl. The court held the statute protects defendants only when the incriminating evidence “resulted solely from seeking such medical assistance,” and here the evidence flowed from the arrest on the outstanding warrant, not from the 911 call.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Delaware County Common Pleas Court’s convictions and sentences of Billie Jo Kirven following her consolidated guilty pleas in two cases. Kirven argued the trial court convicted her without first accepting guilty pleas and that her pleas were not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary under Crim.R. 11. The appellate court reviewed the plea hearing transcript, found the record showed Kirven personally acknowledged and accepted the plea terms, received the required constitutional advisements, and that the court accepted the pleas after completing the advisements. The court held any irregular sequencing did not invalidate the pleas.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Belmont County Common Pleas Court's October 3, 2025 denial of Kawame Turner’s pro se motion for additional jail-time credit. Turner had pled guilty pursuant to a jointly recommended 36-month sentence in Case No. 19 CR 209 with 430 days credited, and later was convicted in a separate case (23 CR 258) for failure to appear and received 224 days credit. The appeals court held Turner’s current challenge was a substantive dispute about categories of credited time that must have been raised on direct appeal and is therefore barred by res judicata; Turner also waived review by agreeing to the jointly recommended sentence.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s November 5, 2025 dismissal without a hearing of Sammie Smith Jr.’s pro se August 5, 2025 filing titled “Motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial pursuant to Crim.R. 33(B).” The appellate court held the filing relied on Ohio’s postconviction statute (R.C. 2953.21) and was therefore properly treated as a petition for postconviction relief. The petition was untimely (filed nearly 14 years after the trial transcripts were filed), Smith failed to show an exception to the statute of limitations or to present operative facts or credible evidence entitling him to relief, and his claims were barred by res judicata.

The Superior Court affirmed the denial of Tyrell Giles’s PCRA petition challenging his convictions for aggravated assault and related offenses. Giles filed a late (nunc pro tunc) post-conviction petition claiming trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting when witnesses testified that he was on state parole. The court held the petition was untimely and Giles failed to plead or prove any statutory exception to the PCRA time bar, so the court lacked jurisdiction to review the claim. The Superior Court therefore affirmed denial of relief, noting the lower court’s merits ruling was unnecessary.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Khalil Wisdom's conviction after a jury trial for two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and the concurrent 12-year sentences imposed as a second violent felony offender. The court also affirmed the denial of his CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment alleging ineffective assistance and newly discovered evidence. The court concluded counsel provided effective representation under state and federal standards, any alleged failures did not prejudice defendant given overwhelming video and other evidence, and the trial court properly declined various jury instructions and a new-evidence hearing.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Yordani Urena’s conviction following a guilty plea to second-degree assault and the three-year probation sentence, but modified the probation by striking fees and mandatory surcharge. The court declined to review an unpreserved facial constitutional challenge to a probation condition restricting association and places, and alternatively rejected the challenge on the merits. The court found the association/frequenting condition reasonably necessary given the violent nature of the offense, but concluded that imposing court fees and the mandatory surcharge was not related to rehabilitation and therefore removed that condition.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the Bronx County Supreme Court's June 14, 2021 judgment in People v. Gonzalez. Carlos Gonzalez appealed his conviction and sentence; the appellate panel reviewed the arguments, found the sentence was not excessive, and unanimously affirmed the trial court judgment. The court provided no extended opinion or new legal rule, simply announcing affirmation and referring appellant's counsel to the court's rule § 606.5 regarding appellate practice matters.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Dana Meador’s pretrial habeas petition seeking a reduction of a $750,000 bond in a first-degree murder prosecution. The court reviewed the statutory and common-law factors for bail, including the violent nature of the offense, potential punishment, community safety, flight risk, and financial ability to post bond. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court, the appeals court found Meador failed to prove the bond was excessive or used as an instrument of oppression and concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Shaun Patrick Stewart's appeal from a Sumter County circuit court decision and, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief; the court issued a short ruling without published reasoning and all three judges concurred. The decision notes that it is not final until any timely, authorized post-decision motions are resolved under Florida appellate rules. No additional factual or legal analysis is included in the opinion.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Erique Goshay's appeal from his criminal conviction and sentence in Duval County. After considering the briefs and record, the appellate court issued a per curiam opinion that affirms the lower court's decision without published opinion or stated reasons. The judgment of the circuit court is left in place and the panel of judges unanimously concurred. The opinion notes that it is not final until any timely post-opinion motions are resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a criminal case. Calvin W. Thomas appealed a Seminole County circuit court decision; the appellate panel issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 28, 2026, simply stating AFFIRMED. The court did not elaborate its reasoning in the published entry and the three-judge panel concurred. No additional factual findings, legal analysis, or instructions were included in the opinion.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Antonio Christopher Youngblood's appeal from a Duval County circuit court criminal case. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's judgment. No published opinion or extended reasoning is provided in the document; the court simply issued an affirmance with all three judges concurring. The decision becomes final unless a timely, authorized motion for rehearing or certification is filed under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed a pro se defendant's appeal under Florida Rule 3.800 from a Citrus County circuit court decision. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, unanimously concluding that the lower court's ruling should stand. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published in this document; the court simply entered an affirmance of the circuit court's judgment. The decision is subject to any timely authorized motion under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Curtis McNealy's appeal from the circuit court's ruling on his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion. McNealy represented himself; the State did not file an appearance. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision, concluding simply that the lower court's decision was correct and affirming that judgment. No extended opinion, reasoning, or citation of legal authorities was provided in the document beyond the court's one-line disposition.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Keita Jermaine Gaymon Jr.'s appeal from a Lee County circuit court criminal case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court issued a per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, concluding that the trial court's judgment or ruling should stand. No extended opinion, legal analysis, or separate concurrence/dissent accompanied the brief order. The panel of judges Wozniak, White, and Mize concurred and the clerk noted the usual rehearing period is available.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Jason Daniel Aycox's appeal from the Lee County circuit court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). After considering the record, the court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. No separate opinion or extended reasoning was provided; the panel of judges concurred and the opinion notes the decision is not final until the rehearing period expires.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Derek D. Durant's appeal from the Lee County circuit court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, affirming the lower court's judgment. No separate opinion or explanation of reasoning was provided in the published entry; the panel of three judges concurred and the court noted the usual period for filing a motion for rehearing.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in the criminal case of Christopher Coaxum. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, concluding that the lower court's ruling should stand. No published opinion, explanation, or separate opinion accompanied the affirmance; the panel judges Nardella, Smith, and Kamoutsas concurred. The appellant was represented by counsel from Cohen Law, P.A., and the State by assistant attorneys general. The decision is subject to the normal rehearing deadline.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Quantavious Piglor's appeal from a Polk County circuit court criminal matter and unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion is per curiam, brief, and provides no extended reasoning in the published entry. The panel of Judges White, Brownlee, and Kamoutsas concurred. The public defender and assistant attorney general represented the parties. The court's judgment affirms the trial court judgment or order under review and ends this stage of the appeal unless a timely rehearing is filed.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Kristavion J. Harris's appeal from a Polk County circuit court criminal case and issued a one-line per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The opinion contains no published reasoning beyond the formal disposition and concurrence by the three judges. The appellate court therefore upheld the trial court's judgment and sentence without further explanation, and the mandate will issue after the rehearing period expires or is resolved.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Judith Ivette Torres Garcia's appeal from the Polk County Circuit Court and issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. The panel unanimously agreed to affirm the decision of the trial court. No opinion text or reasoning is included in the document beyond the formal affirmance and the names of the judges and counsel. The mandate is subject to the ordinary rehearing period described at the end of the opinion.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment in a criminal appeal by Juan Figueroa-Rivera. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the circuit court in Osceola County. The appellate court issued a short per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, simply stating 'AFFIRMED' without extended opinion. The panel of judges concurred and the appellant proceeded pro se; the state did not file a response on appeal.