Court Filings

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.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a criminal case. Eric Alexander Roe appealed a Polk County conviction (lower tribunal 2021-CF-005791). The appellate court issued a short per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, concluding the trial court's rulings should stand. No extended opinion or detailed reasoning was published; the panel issued a simple affirmance with all three judges concurring.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Polk County in the criminal case of Carleton E. Boyce, III. The appeal was briefed and argued by the public defender and the state; the district court issued a per curiam opinion, announcing affirmation without published opinion or extended discussion. The panel (Stargel, White, and Mize, JJ.) concurred. No separate analysis, holdings, or reasons are provided in the short decision beyond the affirmance.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the trial court's judgment in the criminal case of Jerrell Lamont Smith. The appeal, taken from the Marion County Circuit Court, was considered on the briefs and oral argument, and the appellate panel issued a per curiam decision simply stating "AFFIRMED." No extended opinion or new legal analysis was published in the decision; the judges concurred and directed that the decision is not final until any timely, authorized post-judgment motions are resolved under Florida appellate rules.

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Ralph J. Gipple’s motions to revise his sentencing entries to increase jail-time credit. Gipple argued that all days he spent confined across three separate cases should be applied to the concurrent prison terms, relying on State v. Fugate. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Fugate applies only where pretrial confinement was attributable to multiple offenses simultaneously; here, Gipple’s confinement periods were not entirely overlapping and the trial court properly applied jail-time credit only to the offenses for which he was confined. The convictions and concurrent sentences remain affirmed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ashtabula County Common Pleas Court’s sentence of two years of community control for Maurice D. Turner following his guilty pleas to two fifth‑degree felonies (breaking and entering and aggravated possession of drugs). The parties jointly recommended community control with treatment, and the trial court ordered Turner to successfully complete the NEOCAP residential program as a condition. Because the sentence was jointly recommended, authorized by law, and neither Turner nor counsel objected at plea or sentencing, the appellate court held R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bars review and affirmed.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the Portage County Common Pleas court's denial of Austin Mehring’s successive petition for post-conviction relief without a hearing. Mehring had pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and misdemeanor assault in 2022, did not appeal, and later filed untimely post-conviction petitions claiming newly discovered exculpatory cellphone video and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held it lacked jurisdiction to consider the successive petition because Mehring failed to meet the statutory exceptions in R.C. 2953.23(A), and his claims were barred by res judicata, so no evidentiary hearing was required.

The Ohio Court of Appeals reviewed Ashley K.M. Kendrick’s challenge to her aggregate 23-month prison sentence following multiple community-control violations and a new felony conviction. The court held that the trial court had provided adequate notice of the possible prison-range at the original community-control sentencing hearings, did not err by imposing reserved/suspended prison terms while imposing community control, and permissibly ordered one new felony sentence to run consecutively to earlier concurrent reserved terms. The appellate court corrected a clerical discrepancy in the judgment entry and modified the record to reflect an aggregate 23-month term, then affirmed as modified.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Lake County Common Pleas Court’s denial of Julio C. Diaz’s postjudgment motion seeking a hearing under R.C. 2947.23(B) to perform community service in lieu of paying $2,260 in court costs. Diaz argued the court should have held a hearing because he had not paid the costs. The appeals court found the record did not show he failed to pay or defaulted under an approved payment schedule, and the clerk’s letter about potential commissary garnishment did not establish a basis for a hearing. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion without a hearing.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed a 90-day jail sentence plus two years of community-control supervision imposed on Aaron Hoover after he pled guilty to a first-degree misdemeanor domestic-violence offense. The court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing and concluded the sentence was within statutory limits and not unreasonable. The trial judge considered the presentence report, victim injury, the defendant’s alcohol issues, and the use of a firearm; the appellate court found no affirmative showing the trial court failed to consider required factors.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Noble County Common Pleas Court's October 28, 2025 denial of Daniel T. McElfresh’s motions seeking return of $475 and contempt against the sheriff. McElfresh had pleaded guilty to aggravated possession and later claimed money seized in 2021 was never returned. The record and sheriff jail records showed the $475 was placed in McElfresh’s commissary account on March 8, 2021, and the remaining funds were applied to outstanding jail fees. Because the money had been returned and applied to McElfresh’s debt, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief.

The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment adjudicating Pierre Damond Hall guilty and sentencing him to nine years’ imprisonment after revoking deferred adjudication for methamphetamine possession, but it modified the judgment to delete a $1,550 fine that was included in the written judgment without being orally pronounced at the adjudication hearing. Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief finding no arguable grounds for appeal but asked the court to remove the unpronounced fine. The Court of Appeals conducted an independent review, found no reversible error affecting liberty, and deleted the unsupported fine while granting counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A Rusk County jury convicted Justin Tremane Simon of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to seventy years’ imprisonment. On appeal Simon argued the evidence was insufficient to prove he was the robber and that the trial court erred by instructing jurors they could consider good-conduct time when assessing punishment. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, finding the circumstantial evidence (possession of pharmacy stock bottles, a damp hoodie, a pill on his person, his presence at his mother’s home tied to the victim’s phone pings, and false statements to police) supported a rational verdict. The court also found the jury-charge error regarding good-conduct time did not cause egregious harm given the overall charge, the evidence, counsel’s arguments, and no jury inquiries.

The Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, affirmed appellant Joseph Bebout West Jr.'s conviction for family-violence assault and one-year sentence. West challenged the denial of his motion for new trial, claiming a juror (the Longview mayor) created bias, and argued the jury charge omitted a consent instruction. The court found West forfeited the juror complaint because defense counsel failed to ask voir dire questions that would have revealed the mayoralty and that no evidence supported a consent instruction. Because the record supports the trial court's rulings, the conviction was affirmed.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Cecil McCray from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Alachua County and, in a per curiam opinion dated April 27, 2026, affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion is brief: the court issued a unanimous affirmance without published opinion or extended reasoning, and the three-judge panel concurred. The decision notes that it is not final until any timely post-decision motion under Florida appellate rules is resolved.

The First District Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the trial court's decision in the criminal case of Byron Lee v. State of Florida. The opinion is per curiam and short: the appellate court reviewed the circuit court's ruling and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the judgment. The decision was issued April 27, 2026, and the panel noted concurrence by the chief and two other judges. The opinion is not final until the time for certain post-opinion motions expires under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Naymontie N. Enoch from a decision of the Circuit Court for Alachua County. The appellate court, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief and provides no extended reasoning in the published entry; the court noted concurrence by all judges and reminded parties that the decision is not final until the time for authorized post-decision motions has passed.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal considered Blake Robb's appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. After review, the court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 27, 2026, simply stating the judgment is affirmed. No additional opinion or reasoning was provided in the published entry; the three-judge panel concurred and directed that the decision is not final until any timely authorized motion is resolved under Florida appellate rules.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence of Mashhud Petaway for felonious assault following a jury trial. Petaway challenged pretrial identification, admission of firearm photographs from his phone, limitations on cross-examination of the victim about mental health, sufficiency and weight of the evidence, cumulative error, the Reagan Tokes sentencing law, and imposition of firearm specifications. The court upheld the trial court’s rulings, finding the photographic evidence admissible (or harmless if not), the limitation on cross-examination permissible without a proffered nexus to impairments, the evidence sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence, and the sentencing (including firearm specifications) lawful under Ohio precedent.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment convicting Daryl Anderson Dillard after he pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, vandalism, and one count of OVI. Dillard argued his trial counsel was ineffective for permitting guilty pleas instead of no-contest pleas because guilty pleas waived his ability to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. The appellate court held Dillard failed to show prejudice or deficient performance: the record did not show the State would have accepted no-contest pleas on the same terms and there is no evidence what advice counsel gave, so any off-the-record claims must be raised in post-conviction proceedings.

The Montgomery County Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence of Robert Crowder Jr. after a jury trial. Crowder was convicted of trespass in a habitation, breaking and entering (merged for sentencing), forgery of an elderly person’s deed, tampering with records, and two counts for false representation as an attorney. The court held there was sufficient evidence and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence because J.C. and his electrician came to the house while Crowder remained there. The court also rejected Crowder’s challenge to merger of the forgery and record-tampering counts, finding separate victims (J.C. and the government).

The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant Precious Carmichael’s convictions following a jury trial for strangulation (fourth-degree felony) and child endangering (first-degree misdemeanor). Carmichael had sought jury instructions on a reasonable parental-discipline defense and moved to exclude certain prior-bad-acts evidence; she also challenged sufficiency/weight of the evidence and alleged ineffective assistance. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in denying the instruction or excluding evidence, concluded the State presented legally sufficient and not-contradicted evidence (including the child’s testimony, bruising and a cord pattern of injury), and rejected the ineffective-assistance claim.