Court Filings

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Jose Martinez's conviction and sentence for third-degree robbery after he pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver. The court found the oral plea colloquy adequately explained the appeal waiver, separate from rights lost by pleading guilty, and that Martinez acknowledged discussing the waiver with counsel and understood its consequences. Because the waiver was knowing and voluntary and Martinez had been informed of the possible prison exposure if he failed interim probation, his challenge to the severity of the sentence was barred.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Jerry Ellington's conviction and agreed-upon sentence after a guilty plea to attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree. Ellington had pleaded guilty in satisfaction of an indictment charging multiple contraband-related offenses and admitted his involvement; County Court imposed a 1½ to 3-year term to run consecutive to his existing sentence. The appellate court found his challenges to plea voluntariness and counsel performance unpreserved and, on the merits, concluded the plea colloquy and record showed the plea was knowing and voluntary. The court also held the agreed sentence was the minimum authorized by law and not excessive.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed County Court's denial of defendant Duane MM.'s 2022 application for resentencing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA). Defendant, convicted in 1996 of two counts of second-degree murder and other property offenses for killings committed when he was 16, argued his history of sexual abuse by his father significantly contributed to the crimes and that his original sentence was unduly harsh. The court found the expert testimony lacked sufficient contact with or records about defendant and offered no nexus to one murder, and defendant's own statement did not tie the abuse to his actions. Because defendant did not prove the required DVSJA factors by a preponderance of the evidence, resentencing was properly denied.

The Second Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Gene Anthony Tutt’s convictions and 38-year sentences for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and occlusion assault. Tutt complained on appeal that (1) the trial court erred by admitting the victim’s out-of-court statements to an officer as hearsay and (2) the State failed to prove he was the same person convicted of two prior felonies used to enhance punishment. The court held the victim’s statements were admissible as excited utterances and that documentary evidence (judgments, identification numbers, social security number, booking/ten-print records) and fingerprint comparison sufficiently linked Tutt to the prior Missouri convictions.

The Second Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Carolyn Rodriguez’s conviction for hindering an official proceeding by disorderly conduct (Tex. Penal Code § 38.13). Rodriguez argued the statute was unconstitutional, the court erred in quashing a subpoena for County Judge Tim O’Hare, the jury charge was defective, and the evidence was insufficient. The court rejected her facial and applied First Amendment challenges, found no abuse of discretion in quashing O’Hare’s subpoena, determined the jury charge contained one harmless omission in mental-state wording but no reversible error, and held the evidence (including an audiovisual recording and deputy testimony) was sufficient to support the conviction.

The Texas Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed a jury conviction of Ronald Wayne Stivers, Jr. for failing to register as a sex offender. Stivers argued the trial court erred by admitting a prior Illinois conviction as extraneous-offense evidence and that its prejudicial effect outweighed probative value. The court held the prior conviction was admissible to prove Stivers knew of his duty to register — a required mental-state element — and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. The opinion also sua sponte corrected the judgment to cite Article 62.102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed Joseph Traeger's criminal case from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The appeal was brief and the opinion per curiam simply states the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. The panel (Kuntz, C.J., May and Forst, JJ.) concurred. The opinion is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a criminal case. The appeal, filed by Timothy Floyd from a Clay County circuit court conviction or ruling, was considered on the briefs and oral argument, and the appellate court, per curiam, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision without published opinion. The court's brief order indicates no change to the judgment below and leaves in place the trial court's outcome and any attendant penalties or orders.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Timothy Asaad Brown's appeal from a Duval County circuit court criminal proceeding and, in a brief per curiam opinion dated April 23, 2026, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion contains only the single-word disposition “AFFIRMED,” with the panel (Jay, C.J., Eisnaugle and MacIver, JJ.) concurring. No substantive reasoning, factual summary, or citation to authorities appears in the published entry, and the opinion notes that it is not final until any timely post-opinion motions are resolved under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed James E. McNair's appeal from a ruling of the Marion County Circuit Court under Florida Rule 3.800 (postconviction relief). The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 23, 2026, affirming the lower court's judgment. No opinion explanation is included in this document; the court's single-line disposition simply affirms the circuit court's ruling, and the judgment is final subject to any timely authorized motions under Florida appellate rules.

The appellate court reviewed a circuit court order that denied William Brunner's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion and affirmed that denial. Brunner, proceeding pro se, appealed the post-conviction motion ruling. The Fourth District issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's order without published opinion and with no briefed response from the State. The court's short decision provides final appellate disposition subject to any timely motion for rehearing.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Terone Woods from the circuit court's denial of his Rule 3.800 motion (a postconviction motion challenging sentencing). The appellate court, speaking through a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's order denying relief. No written opinion explaining the court’s reasoning beyond the disposition was provided in the document, and the panel judges concurred. The decision is subject to being final only after any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Secret Jackson from a circuit court order denying a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 postconviction motion. The appellate court issued a short per curiam decision: it affirmed the denial of Jackson’s motion. No opinion explanation or separate written reasoning is provided in the published entry; the panel consisted of Chief Judge Kuntz and Judges Levine and Shepherd. The decision is subject to being final only after the period for a timely motion for rehearing has passed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in the criminal case of Paul Maier. The appeal arose from a Broward County circuit court criminal matter (case no. 062020CF002754A88810). The appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision simply stating 'Affirmed' and noted the opinion is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. No additional reasoning or explanation appears in the published entry.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed Jose Morales's appeal of a trial court order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion challenging his sentence. The appellate court, per curiam, affirmed the trial court's denial without written opinion. The decision simply upholds the lower court's ruling and leaves intact the judgment and sentence as previously imposed; the opinion notes that the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed Felex Joseph's appeal from a Palm Beach County circuit court criminal case. The appellate court issued a short, per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. No published opinion or detailed reasoning is provided in the document; the court simply notes the judgment is affirmed and that the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The appellate court reviewed Donnevia Peters' appeal from a Broward County criminal conviction and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is per curiam, short, and states only that the appeal is affirmed without elaboration. The court noted that the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is decided. No additional reasoning or factual discussion appears in the published disposition.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in the criminal case of Chaunice Kendrick v. State of Florida. The panel issued a brief per curiam decision, concluding the appellant's challenges did not warrant reversal. The opinion is concise, notes concurrence by all three judges, and indicates the decision is not final pending any timely motion for rehearing. No further reasoning or factual explanation is included in the published entry.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment in a criminal appeal by Bridges Avery Grossi. The appeal arose from a conviction and sentence entered in the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion affirming the trial court's decision without published opinion and noted that the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Aniel Escobar from a circuit court order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion. The appellate court, in a short per curiam disposition, affirmed the trial court's denial without published opinion or extended discussion. Judges Ciklin, Conner, and Shaw concurred. The judgment is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s summary denial of James Ernest Hitchcock’s successive postconviction motion and denied his motion for a stay of execution. Hitchcock, a death-row inmate with a warrant set for April 30, 2026, sought public records from FDOC and FDLE to support a proposed Eighth Amendment challenge to Florida’s lethal-injection procedures and also raised an actual-innocence claim. The Court concluded Hitchcock’s requests were not tethered to a cognizable rule 3.851 claim, he failed to show a colorable method-of-execution claim or identify an available less painful alternative, and Florida does not recognize a freestanding postconviction actual-innocence claim.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court’s denial of a writ petition seeking to stop youth offender parole hearings under Penal Code section 3051 for offenders sentenced under section 667.6’s “full, separate, and consecutive” scheme. Jessica, a victim, challenged section 3051 as an unconstitutional legislative amendment of voter-approved Proposition 83 (which restated and expanded parts of § 667.6). The court held Jessica had standing under Marsy’s Law to challenge the parole hearing, but concluded Proposition 83’s changes to § 667.6(c)–(d) were not substantive and therefore did not prevent the Legislature from enacting § 3051. The petition was denied and the judgment affirmed.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed William Mitchell Keen’s conviction and nine-year sentence for indecency with a child. Keen’s court-appointed appellate lawyer filed an Anders brief saying there were no arguable grounds for reversal, and Keen filed a pro se brief. The appeals court conducted a full review of the record, the Anders brief, and the pro se brief, found no reversible error or arguable grounds for appeal, and declined to appoint new counsel for further briefing. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed.

The Court of Appeals reviewed an appeal from the revocation of Tiffany Rhae Whittley’s community supervision for a third-degree felony conviction (intentional injury to a child). The trial court found multiple supervision violations, revoked probation, and sentenced her to three years confinement. Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting the appeal is frivolous; Whittley did not file a pro se response. The appellate court reviewed the record, found no nonfrivolous issues, corrected the trial court’s judgment to reflect the four violations actually found (a, b1, d, p), and affirmed the judgment as modified.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed Nathaniel Armed Melendez Jr.’s conviction and 70-year sentence for murder. Melendez argued the evidence was insufficient to show he acted intentionally or knowingly, his trial counsel was ineffective for several omissions, and the prosecutor made improper remarks in closing. The court found the evidence—Melendez firing ten rounds into a small apartment, injuring multiple people and fleeing—permitted a rational jury to infer intent or knowledge. The record did not show deficient trial performance or preserved prosecutorial error, so the conviction was affirmed.

The Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Luis Alonzo Perez Jr.’s conviction for burglary of a habitation with intent to commit aggravated assault. Perez argued (1) the evidence was insufficient, (2) the trial court erred by admitting extraneous-offense evidence, and (3) the court improperly allowed witnesses to describe how the incident affected them. The court found the record supported that Perez forced part of his body into a home while holding and using a knife, threatening the victim, and that prior misconduct evidence and impact testimony were admissible and not unduly prejudicial. The conviction and 14-year sentence were affirmed.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment sentencing Jacob Wayne Peek after he entered an open plea of no contest to indecency with a child by sexual contact. Peek was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment, to run consecutively to a separate thirty-year sentence for an aggravated sexual assault conviction that is not at issue here. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting there were no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal; Peek filed a pro se brief and the State responded. The appellate court reviewed the record and briefs, found the appeal frivolous, granted counsel's motion to withdraw, and affirmed.

A jury convicted Gabriel Gallegos of continuous sexual abuse of a child and two counts of indecency with a child. On appeal to the Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio), Gallegos argued the evidence was insufficient for one indecency count, alleged multiple jury-charge errors, and contested assessment of court costs. The court upheld the convictions, finding Amy Doe’s outcry and other evidence sufficient for the indecency conviction, that any potential jury-charge defects did not cause the egregious harm required to reverse unpreserved errors, and that Gallegos forfeited his complaint about the court-cost inquiry by not objecting at sentencing.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed Edward Arnold Few’s convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child by exposure. Few challenged multiple trial rulings — late disclosure of cell-phone extraction reports, admission of photos/videos from phones, hearsay/outcry testimony, extraneous-offense testimony, a ChildSafe interview video excerpt, and a double-jeopardy claim. The court rejected each argument, finding Few waived many objections by failing to timely and specifically object at trial, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under the applicable evidentiary rules and statutory provisions, and that the two convictions punished distinct acts involving different body parts (anus vs. genitals).

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment sentencing Carlos Zepeda Gonzales to nine years’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine after the court adjudicated guilt on an online solicitation of a minor conviction following violations of deferred adjudication. Gonzales argued his sentence was excessive, that the court improperly made a “42A” finding affecting parole, and that the court failed to inquire into his ability to pay costs. The appellate court found each complaint forfeited for failure to object at trial and explained that, even if preserved, the sentence was within the statutory range and not grossly disproportionate.