Court Filings

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reviewed an appeal by Louis Narada Armstrong from a Manatee County circuit court decision. After considering the parties' filings and arguments, the appellate court issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The opinion was brief, filed April 29, 2026, and did not elaborate reasoning in the published entry; the panel of judges concurred and the judgment of the circuit court stands as affirmed.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment below in a criminal case. The appeal was taken by Anthony Carl Williams, who proceeded pro se, from a decision of the Circuit Court for Alachua County. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion, summarily rejecting the appellant's contentions and affirming the lower court's ruling without extended opinion. The panel judges concurred and the opinion notes the decision is not final until any timely authorized post-opinion motions are resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal/post-conviction matter brought by appellant Pythis Pleas. The per curiam opinion, issued April 29, 2026, contains a single-line disposition: AFFIRMED. The panel (Bilbrey, Kelsey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ.) concurred and noted the decision is not final until any timely permitted motions under Florida appellate rules are resolved. No reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis is included in the published entry.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal case involving appellant Kemauri Lionel McNeal and the State of Florida. The opinion is per curiam, brief, and states only the disposition "AFFIRMED" without publishing reasoning in this document. The appeal arose from a judgment or order entered by the Circuit Court for Escambia County before Judge Amy P. Brodersen. The panel of judges (Lewis, Rowe, and Nordby) concurred, and the opinion notes that the decision is not final until any timely authorized motion is resolved under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Joseph Luther’s appeal and addressed a sentencing discrepancy. The trial court orally pronounced concurrent life sentences on Counts I and II, but the written sentencing order incorrectly stated the sentences would run consecutively. Because the orally pronounced sentence controls when the written order conflicts, the court reversed in part and remanded for the trial court to enter a written sentence matching the oral pronouncement. The remainder of the judgment and sentence was affirmed.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed Gregory Wayne Orlando Lee's appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County and unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion is per curiam, brief, and provides no extended reasoning in the published entry. The court's ruling leaves in place the judgment or order entered by the trial court and notes that the decision is not final until any timely postjudgment motion under Florida appellate rules is resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Tyrell Harris from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 29, 2026, and affirmed the lower court's ruling. No detailed reasoning is provided in the published entry; the court's short opinion simply states the judgment is affirmed and notes judges concurred. The decision is subject to potential timely motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 before becoming final.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Shawn A. Tyson from a Sarasota County circuit court order. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision and affirmed the lower court's judgment. No opinion content or legal reasoning is provided in the published entry beyond the single-word disposition and noting that the judgment is subject to revision prior to official publication.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, affirmed the judgment below in a criminal appeal by Rashad Taylor from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The appeal was filed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The per curiam opinion, joined by all judges, issues a brief disposition affirming the lower court's decision without published opinion and notes the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal of Florida reviewed an appeal by Rashad J. Taylor from a Hillsborough County circuit court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appellate court issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The opinion is brief, gives no published reasoning beyond the affirmation, and notes that the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in an appeal by Gary Swain. Swain, appearing pro se, sought review under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 29, 2026, concluding that the circuit court's ruling should be upheld. No published opinion or extended reasoning was provided in the document; the panel of judges concurred and the judgment was affirmed.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirmed a lower-court decision in a criminal matter. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the County Court for Pinellas County. The per curiam opinion states simply: Affirmed. Three judges concurred. No further reasoning, facts, or citation details are provided in the document.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a pro se appeal by Darrell Anthony Patterson, Jr., from a Pinellas County circuit court order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 29, 2026, affirming the lower court's decision. No published opinion or extended explanation of reasoning appears in the document; the panel simply affirmed the judgment of the circuit court and the decision is subject to revision before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a pro se criminal appeal by John H. Paschal. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from a Pinellas County circuit court order. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision, with three judges concurring, and affirmed the lower court's ruling without published opinion or extended reasoning. The judgment resolves the appeal against Paschal and leaves the circuit court's order intact.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a pro se criminal appeal by Kenneth E. Mills from the circuit court in Pinellas County under the rule for appeals in criminal cases. After considering the record, the panel issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief, provides no published reasoning, and notes it may be revised before official publication. The judges concurred and the decision was entered on April 29, 2026.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in an appeal brought by Charles E. Lovett, Jr. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) and reviewed an order from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County before Judge Philip James Federico. The court issued a brief per curiam decision—joined by Chief Judge Lucas and Judges Khouzam and Sleet—stating simply: Affirmed. No further reasoning or opinion was published in this decision as presented.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's judgment in a criminal postconviction appeal by Kenneth James Kendrick. The court issued a short per curiam decision noting the appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) and concluding affirmation without published opinion. The panel (Lucas, Khouzam, and Sleet) concurred. No further reasoning or factual discussion appears in the published entry.

The Third District Court of Appeal reviewed George Madison’s challenge to his enhanced sentences for kidnapping, carjacking, robbery, and two identity-fraud counts. Madison argued the trial judge, rather than a jury, made the factual findings that triggered statutory enhancements and that the findings were made by a preponderance standard. The court held that any constitutional error under Erlinger was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the State presented unrebutted evidence at sentencing that plainly supported the enhancements. The court affirmed the enhancements but reversed and remanded to correct errors in the written sentencing order so it matches the oral pronouncements.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Edwin Proano's motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b) after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court deferred to the trial court's credibility findings, accepted trial counsel's tactical explanation for not calling a responding officer, and concluded there was competent, substantial evidence that no formal six-year plea offer existed. Because the record showed reasonable strategic choices and insufficient prejudice from counsel's actions, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling denying relief.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a circuit court order that summarily denied Traves Malcolm’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion claiming newly discovered evidence (a previously unknown 20-year plea offer). The appellate court agreed the motion was facially deficient because it lacked a proper oath and did not include an affidavit from trial counsel as required by rule 3.850(c)(7) (or explain why one could not be obtained). Because the trial court denied the motion without giving Malcolm an opportunity to amend those defects, the appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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 Fourth District Court of Appeal partially reversed and partially affirmed Devonte Baker’s convictions related to multiple tire-slashing incidents. The court held the State failed to prove Baker’s identity for the first incident and failed to prove he was armed for two armed-trespass counts. It reversed counts 1 and 2 (identity insufficiency), reduced counts 4 and 6 from armed trespass to simple trespass, and ordered vacation of counts 8 and 9 from the judgment because they had already been acquitted. The court affirmed convictions for counts 3, 5 (criminal mischiefs), and 7 (stalking), and remanded for amended judgments and resentencing.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Christopher J. Porter’s convictions for sexual battery and related lewd offenses but reversed part of his sentence. The court found the trial judge had orally imposed life imprisonment for the sexual-battery count and concurrent mandatory minimums for two molestation counts, but the written judgment mistakenly listed a 25-year minimum for the sexual-battery count. The court ordered correction of the written sentence to strike the improper 25-year mandatory minimum for the sexual-battery count and also directed removal of misdemeanor costs; it upheld a $65 county ordinance court cost as properly imposed.

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 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.