Court Filings

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department unanimously affirmed two Cayuga County Court judgments convicting defendant Austin R. Deal after guilty pleas: one for aggravated family offense and the other for aggravated criminal contempt. The court rejected defendant's challenges to the issuance of an order of protection, holding the court did not abuse its discretion and was not required to obtain consent from the protected person, and noted the order can be modified by motion if circumstances change. The court also found the sentences were not unduly harsh or severe and therefore affirmed both convictions and sentences.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a Monroe County Court order that classified Anthony Colbert as a level three risk under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act. The court reviewed the county court's refusal to grant a downward departure from the presumptive risk level and found no abuse of discretion. Applying the three-step departure analysis and weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, the court concluded the totality of circumstances did not justify lowering Colbert's presumptive risk level, relying on precedent including People v Gillotti.

The Appellate Division affirmed defendant Theodore E. Coffie’s conviction for first-degree reckless endangerment arising from nine shots fired toward a street outside a house. The court dismissed the portion of the appeal challenging sentence and rejected Coffie’s claims that the evidence was insufficient, that grand jury and jury-note procedures were flawed, that prosecutorial misconduct occurred, and that trial counsel was ineffective. The court found the girlfriend’s identification, the parked vehicle with a passenger during the shooting, and a recovered bullet near the scene provided a valid basis for the jury’s verdict and that any preserved errors did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Trevor E. Clarke's convictions for multiple sexual offenses but reduced his aggregate prison exposure. The court rejected Clarke's argument that the guilty verdicts were against the weight of the evidence, finding credibility determinations for the jury. It declined to review an unpreserved constitutional claim about excluded defense questioning. The court found the original aggregate sentence of 52 years to life unduly harsh and, in the interest of justice, ordered two specified counts to run concurrently, reducing the aggregate sentence to 37 years to life while otherwise affirming the judgment.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed the conviction of Frank Bredt for two counts of second-degree murder arising from evidence that he doused his girlfriend with gasoline and set her on fire. The court rejected claims that the trial court abused its discretion by denying substitution of counsel, improperly excluded defense testimony suggesting the victim started the fire, and permitted prosecutorial misconduct or untimely disclosure of trial-created photographs. It held the evidence—largely circumstantial including motive, threatening texts, behavior after the fire, and forensic findings—was legally sufficient and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were denied as speculative or without merit, and the sentence was affirmed as not unduly harsh.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Brian Baxter Jr.'s conviction for second-degree murder. The court rejected Baxter's challenges to the weight of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found eyewitness identification, surveillance showing a person matching Baxter traveling to and from the scene near the time of the shooting, matching descriptions from multiple witnesses, and evidence of a dispute over a defective gun provided sufficient support for the verdict. Preservation rules prevented review of several evidentiary objections, and the court found counsel's performance constitutionally adequate. The sentence was upheld as not unduly harsh.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Joseph D. Ayer’s convictions for second-degree burglary and petit larceny following a jury trial and appeal from a Genesee County conviction. The court held that officers properly initiated and escalated their encounter with defendant based on proximity to the scene and matching description, that defendant voluntarily consented to a search of a lunch box, and that there was sufficient evidence (including codefendant admissions and property possession) to support the convictions. The court also rejected claims of conflict waiver error, ineffective assistance, most prosecutorial misconduct claims, and sentencing excessiveness.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Dvontea Alexander’s convictions (including second-degree murder, two counts of attempted second-degree murder, and several assault and weapons charges) after a jury trial. The court rejected defendant’s challenges to jury selection, the admission of GPS-based video files and certain still images, and claims of prosecutorial misconduct—mostly finding those arguments were either without merit or not preserved for appeal. The court applied established standards for juror impartiality, lay witness identification, and preservation of evidentiary and summation objections in reaching its decision.

A jury convicted Eric Lon Jones of delivery of methamphetamine (4–200 grams) in Williamson County and assessed 45 years and a $10,000 fine. On appeal Jones argued the jury charge erred by (1) failing to include a venue instruction under former article 13.04 (venue for offenses committed on or within 400 yards of county boundaries) and (2) failing to define “preponderance of the evidence.” The Court of Appeals held there was no error: article 13.04 was not applicable where the offense and prosecution occurred in the same county and the evidence locating the buy in Williamson County was undisputed, and the court was not required to define “preponderance of the evidence.” The conviction was affirmed.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals reviewed Christopher Devontae Bennett’s appeal after the trial court adjudicated his guilt for sexual assault of a child and sentenced him to 18 years’ confinement following violations of court-ordered community supervision. Bennett’s appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw with an Anders brief stating the appeal is frivolous. The appellate court independently reviewed the record, found no arguable grounds for reversal, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s adjudication and sentence. The court advised Bennett of his rights and noted he filed no pro se brief.

The Court of Appeals (Sixth District) affirmed the trial court's revocation of Roy Cletdell Robinson's community supervision for a state-jail felony possession conviction. Robinson was alleged to have failed to report for supervision (March–May 2025), failed to provide a valid address, failed to perform required community service, and failed to pay fines and costs. The court found the evidence (including testimony from Robinson and his supervision officer) sufficient by a preponderance to support revocation, and held Robinson forfeited his claim that his due-process rights were violated because he failed to timely object at the revocation hearing.

The Texas court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s revocation of Roy Cletdell Robinson’s five-year community supervision for evading arrest with a prior conviction. Robinson argued the evidence was insufficient to support revocation and that the trial court violated his due process rights by relying on hearsay probation officer testimony without a business records affidavit. The appellate court applied the same standards and analysis used in Robinson’s companion appeal, found no reversible error, and concluded the trial court properly revoked supervision. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Michael Christopher Thompson's appeal from a Santa Rosa County circuit court decision and, in a short per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion contains only the single-word disposition “AFFIRMED” with no published reasoning. The panel of three judges concurred, and the decision notes that it is not final until any timely motion under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 is resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court decision in a criminal matter. The opinion is per curiam, with three judges concurring, and affirms the judgment of the circuit court for Santa Rosa County. No additional reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis is provided in this short opinion; it simply announces that the appellate court has reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's ruling, and notifies parties of the right to file certain post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal brought by Anthony R. Medina from a decision of the Circuit Court for Manatee County. The District Court of Appeal summarily affirmed the lower court's judgment without published opinion on April 24, 2026. The per curiam decision states only the disposition (affirmed) and notes concurrence by the three judges; no explanatory reasoning or legal analysis is included in the document provided.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a county court judgment in a criminal or quasi-criminal matter involving Mark Alan Lane, who appealed pro se against the State of Florida. The opinion is unpublished and brief: the panel issued a per curiam decision stating simply 'Affirmed' without extended explanation. The court's judgment upholds the lower court's ruling and leaves the county court's decision intact. No detailed reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis appears in the published entry.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a county court decision in a case where Mark Alan Lane appealed a judgment involving the State of Florida. The appeal was taken pro se by Lane and argued by the Assistant County Attorney for the State. The appellate panel issued a per curiam opinion on April 24, 2026, without published reasoning in the opinion summary, and the court affirmed the lower court's decision. All three judges concurred.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, affirmed the judgment below in an appeal by Chad Krueger against the State of Florida. The court issued a per curiam decision, without published reasoning in this slip opinion, concluding the lower court's ruling should stand. The panel of three judges concurred, and the opinion may still be revised before official publication.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court decision in a criminal matter. The appeal, filed by Gregory Brett Johnson, was considered on the record from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion simply stating 'Affirmed' without further explanation; three judges concurred. No substantive reasoning, discussion of issues, or citation of authorities appears in the published entry provided.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reviewed an appeal by Lorenzo Gulley, Jr. from a Pinellas County circuit court decision. After considering the record and briefs, the panel issued a per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's decision. The court provided no published opinion or detailed reasoning in this entry; the judgment of the trial court therefore stands as affirmed by the appellate court.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Joseph George Heid IV's postconviction motion. The appellate court affirmed the decision in full but noted the trial court may still consider, under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, a separate pending postconviction motion asserting newly discovered video evidence. The panel issued a per curiam order affirming the denial and left open further consideration of the distinct 3.850 claim by the postconviction court.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a criminal case involving Janet Roster. The panel held that the State presented sufficient evidence to support a trafficking offense by relying on the aggregate weight and testing of individual baggies of a controlled substance, and applying precedent that requires viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. The court cited Mosley v. State and Bell v. State to justify both the sufficiency of the tested quantities and the standard for resolving a motion to dismiss, and therefore affirmed the lower court's ruling.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Demiko White from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Alachua County. After consideration, the appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 24, 2026, summarily affirming the lower court's decision. The court provided no published opinion or extended reasoning in the document and noted that the decision is not final until any timely authorized motion under Florida appellate rules is resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Demiko White from a decision of the Alachua County Circuit Court. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 24, 2026, and affirmed the lower court's judgment. No detailed opinions or reasoning are included in the published entry; the court simply announced affirmation and noted that the decision is not final until potential timely motions under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure are resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Michael Christopher Thompson's appeal from a decision of the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. The appellate panel issued a per curiam opinion on April 24, 2026, and the court affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief, provides no expanded explanation, and notes that the decision is not final until any timely authorized motion under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 is resolved.

The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a case filed by appellant Tony L. Scott against the State of Florida. The opinion is per curiam, dated April 24, 2026, and states simply 'AFFIRMED' without additional published reasoning. The panel of judges (Rowe, Nordby, and Long) concurred. The clerk notes the decision is not final until any timely, authorized motions under Florida appellate rules are resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Jimmy Ressler's appeal from a Santa Rosa County circuit court decision. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 24, 2026, and affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion contains no extended discussion of facts or legal reasoning beyond the single-word disposition, and the panel of judges (Rowe, Nordby, and Long) concurred. Counsel for the parties are noted, and the opinion states it is not final until any timely authorized postjudgment motions are resolved.

The First District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court decision in a criminal case. The appeal was brought by Stephanie Dana Reese from a judgment of the County Court for Bay County. The appellate court issued a short per curiam decision on April 24, 2026, simply stating "AFFIRMED," with three judges concurring. The opinion contains no elaboration of reasoning or factual detail beyond the affirmance and the appellate representation for both sides.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Shaheed Kabree Gardner from a decision of the Circuit Court for Alachua County. The appellate court, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's judgment. No published opinion or detailed reasoning is provided in the entry; the court simply announced affirmance and noted the decision is not final until the time for certain post-judgment motions expires.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed Bud Chatman’s appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County and, in a brief per curiam decision dated April 24, 2026, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The opinion is unsigned and states only the disposition—affirmed—with all three judges concurring. No reasoning or factual discussion is included in the published entry. The clerk’s note reminds parties that the decision is not final until any timely, authorized motion under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 is resolved.