Court Filings

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 Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Div. Three) reviewed a challenge to probation condition no. 24, which allowed the probation department to jail a probationer for up to 120 days if he did not "successfully complete" residential treatment and denied credits for time in unsuccessful programs. Although Emrick’s probation was later terminated and he received the disputed custody credits, the court exercised discretion to decide the issues because they are recurring. The court held the condition impermissibly delegated core judicial authority to probation and was invalid for failing to reflect a knowing waiver of the statutory right to custody credits under Penal Code section 2900.5.

The Texas Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Tyrone Shepard for possession of a controlled substance (less than one gram) but modified the trial court judgment to correct clerical errors about plea and jury-waiver language. Shepard argued jury-charge error, improper reopening of the State's case, and denial of a speedy-trial motion. The court held the “on or about” instruction was a correct statement of law and not a comment on the evidence, that the trial court permissibly reopened the State’s case, and that the Barker factors did not show a constitutional speedy-trial violation given delays largely attributable to Shepard and minimal prejudice.

The Court of Appeals reviewed Deandre Brooks’s appeal after the trial court adjudicated him guilty of evading arrest in a motor vehicle, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal is frivolous; Brooks did not file a pro se response. The appellate court conducted an independent review, found no reversible error, but identified a nonreversible clerical error in the judgment’s listed court costs. The court modified the judgment to reflect $404 in costs, affirmed the judgment as modified, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s revocation of Austin Douglas Worley’s community supervision and three-year prison sentence. Worley, originally placed on deferred adjudication for evading arrest in 2017, faced a third motion to adjudicate alleging six violations including a new aggravated-assault offense, failures to report in writing, and unpaid fines and fees. The trial court found five violations true after testimony and evidence, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced him to three years’ confinement. The appellate court held the State met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence and that the revocation did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Michael Marvin Tucker pleaded guilty to deadly conduct, received deferred adjudication and five years’ community supervision, but after the State moved to adjudicate he pleaded true to the allegations, the trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no arguable grounds for appeal, the court conducted an independent review of the record, found no reversible error, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

A Texas court of appeals affirmed Jose Luis Espinoza’s convictions for one count of continuous sexual abuse of a young child and two counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact. A jury convicted him and sentenced him to prison terms running concurrently. On appeal he raised nine issues—challenging sufficiency of the continuous-abuse duration element, double-jeopardy, admission of outcry testimony, extraneous-offense evidence, medical records, expert testimony on credibility, and cumulative error. The court rejected these arguments, finding the evidence legally sufficient, preserved or harmless errors where applicable, and no cumulative error warranting reversal.

The Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals reviewed Homer Esquivel Jr.’s appeal after the trial court revoked his deferred-adjudication community supervision and adjudicated him guilty of two controlled-substance and firearm offenses, sentencing him to concurrent ten-year terms. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no arguable grounds for appeal; the court conducted an independent review, found no reversible error, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court corrected the judgment to reflect that Esquivel pled true to count 14 (not 15), granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and explained appellant’s rights to seek discretionary review.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Walter Green Jr.’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Green had previously been convicted of continuous family violence and later filed an Article 11.07 habeas application challenging his conviction and sentence. The trial court recommended dismissal as a subsequent application and forwarded its findings to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which dismissed the application. Green attempted to appeal the trial court’s findings that were sent to the Court of Criminal Appeals, but the appellate court concluded it lacks jurisdiction over postconviction matters and dismissed the appeal after Green failed to show grounds to proceed.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of USMAN MOHSIN for failure to comply with filing rules. The appellant did not file the required enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after docketing and ignored the court's March 31, 2026 order to file by April 10, 2026. Because the appellant still had not filed the materials as of April 23, 2026, the court deemed the appeal abandoned and dismissed it under the court's procedural rules.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Andre Latrell Burton’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Burton filed a notice of appeal on March 2, 2026 challenging the trial court’s November 5, 2025 denial of his 2024 motion to set aside his sentence. Because Georgia law requires a notice of appeal within 30 days of entry of the order and Burton’s notice was filed about four months late, the Court concluded it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Willie Clarence Lee Jr.'s appeal from the trial court's December 4, 2025 dismissal of his motion to vacate, set aside, or reverse judgment because his notice of appeal, filed January 7, 2026, was untimely. The court explained that Georgia law requires a notice of appeal within 30 days of the judgment or order being appealed and that timely filing is an absolute jurisdictional requirement. Because Lee filed his notice 34 days after the order, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal without reaching the motion's merits.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Michael Riley’s application for postconviction DNA testing of six shell casings. Riley sought new collection and testing based on improved DNA collection techniques, but the court found he implicitly conceded that no “parent sample” (an existing collected sample of biological material containing human DNA) remains. Ohio law requires a parent sample to accept a DNA-testing application. Because Riley sought creation of a new sample from the casings rather than testing an existing parent sample, the statutory prerequisites were not met and the application was properly denied.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Mike Jones’s untimely, successive petition for postconviction relief and his motion for leave to file a motion for new trial. Jones argued newly discovered materials — an internal prosecutor memorandum and a 2024 affidavit from Larissa Taylor — would have supported his self-defense theory or shown Brady suppression. The court held Jones failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence, that the memorandum was admissible or material, or that Taylor’s affidavit would undermine confidence in the jury’s verdict. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant relief and denied the motions.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in State v. Griffin. Griffin challenged a juvenile court’s probable-cause bindover and the imposition of a sentence that included both prison terms and a no-contact condition. The court held Griffin waived his challenge to the bindover by pleading guilty and did not separately raise or preserve a claim that his plea was invalid. The court also held there was no plain error in imposing a no-contact condition because the no-contact term was part of the negotiated plea agreement and Griffin invited any error by accepting the bargain. The convictions and 14-year aggregate sentence were affirmed.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed John Centers’s 66-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to amended unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, tampering with evidence, and gross abuse of a corpse. Centers argued on appeal that the tampering and corpse-abuse convictions should have merged for sentencing because they arose from the same conduct. The court applied merger statutes and plain-error review, concluded Centers did not meet his burden to show the offenses were allied, and held the record supported separate sentences because the conduct could reflect distinct acts and import.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Brianna Becks’s presentence motion to withdraw her guilty plea and upheld her conviction. Becks pled guilty to attempted endangering children as part of a day-of-trial plea agreement and later sought to withdraw the plea at sentencing, alleging ineffective assistance and pressure from counsel. The appeals court found counsel provided effective representation, rejected the claim that counsel had an adverse conflict of interest, and relied on the plea colloquy showing Becks understood the plea. The court therefore affirmed the sentence of one year community control.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed Sabestian A. Magan’s February 25, 2025 convictions for domestic violence and assault after a bench trial in Franklin County Municipal Court. Magan argued his convictions were unsupported by sufficient evidence, were against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for causing him to reject a plea offer. The court found the state presented adequate testimony and photographic evidence to prove physical harm to the victim, rejected credibility challenges to the state’s witnesses, and determined Magan failed to show prejudice under the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.