Court Filings

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 Fifth District Court of Appeal granted Leon N. Wiley, Jr.'s pro se petition for a belated appeal. The court treated its opinion as the notice of appeal from the February 27, 2024 order denying Wiley's motions for postconviction relief in Flagler County Circuit Court Case No. 2019-CF-000303, and directed that a copy be filed with the trial court. The petition was granted under the Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure governing belated appeals, allowing Wiley to pursue appellate review despite missing the original appeal deadline.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed an Anders appeal by Clifton Cinamon challenging the revocation of his community control and the subsequent sentence. The court found no reversible error in the appeal but identified a clerical mistake: the written sentence states 56.750 months, while the oral pronouncement was 56.7 months. Because the orally pronounced sentence controls, the court remanded for the trial court to correct the scrivener's error in the written judgment. The correction is ministerial and does not require the defendant's presence.

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.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal appeal brought by Doderick Woods-Smith against the State of Florida. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for DeSoto County. The per curiam opinion is brief and simply states “Affirmed,” with three judges concurring. No additional reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis is included in the published opinion.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling in a criminal matter brought by Lary Scott Morris, Jr. against the State of Florida. The opinion is per curiam, short, and provides no extended explanation; the appellate panel (Chief Judge Lucas and Judges Silberman and Smith) announced agreement with the lower court's decision and affirmed the judgment. The decision was issued April 24, 2026, and the opinion is subject to revision before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal appeal by Sarah Kynay Martinez against the State of Florida. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. The per curiam opinion, issued April 24, 2026, concluded the appellant's challenge lacked merit and therefore affirmed the judgment below. Three judges concurred and the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the appellant's conviction. The appeal challenged trial rulings related to a search and the revocation hearing, but the court relied on prior decisions holding that smell plus additional observations can support searches and that failure to object preserves nothing for appeal. Because the case involved more than the smell of cannabis and the defendant failed to contemporaneously object at the revocation hearing, the panel concluded no reversible error occurred and affirmed the lower court's decision.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of Patrick Maxwell’s request for resentencing. Maxwell sought resentencing under an earlier Fifth District decision, but before resentencing occurred the Florida Supreme Court clarified in Pedroza v. State that juvenile offenders need resentencing only if their sentence is life or a functional equivalent. The appellate court held the trial court correctly applied the new Pedroza standard and therefore properly denied resentencing. The court found no error and affirmed the lower court’s order.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed Damerius Kashon Hart’s convictions and sentence for two counts of lewd and lascivious battery on a child aged 12–16. Hart challenged the trial court’s imposition of $4,025 labeled as “Cost of Extradition.” The appellate court held that extradition costs are authorized prosecution costs under Florida law (section 938.27(1)) and therefore properly imposed, and that the erroneous statutory citation on the judgment form did not invalidate the assessment. The court rejected Hart’s remaining appellate arguments without discussion.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed a probation revocation and five-year prison sentence imposed on Carliovis Bandera-Valier. The court affirmed the finding that Bandera-Valier violated probation, concluding the earlier Faretta (self-representation) inquiry was adequate for the violation hearing. However, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to renew the offer of counsel before sentencing as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d)(5). The court certified conflict with a Fifth District decision that treated similar error as harmless.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal dismissed Raul A. Campoverde’s appeal because he filed a pro se notice of appeal while he was represented by retained counsel in the trial court. The court concluded that a defendant cannot proceed both pro se and by counsel at the same time, and under Florida precedent such pro se filings while represented are unauthorized and treated as nullities. Because no authorized notice of appeal was filed within the 30-day deadline and no order permitted counsel to withdraw, the appellate court found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal without prejudice to a petition for belated appeal.

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.