Court Filings

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a pro se appeal by Jenouch Ivory Pasco from a Pinellas County circuit court order. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's judgment. No published opinion or extended reasoning was provided in the document; the three-judge panel simply announced affirmation and noted the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed Michael Ortega's appeal from a Pinellas County circuit court order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appellate court, in a brief per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No opinion text or substantive reasoning was provided in the published entry beyond the affirmance and the judges who concurred.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal appeal filed by Christopher Clayton Miller against the State of Florida. The appellate panel issued a per curiam decision, with Judges Kelly, Khouzam, and Sleet concurring, and concluded that the trial court's ruling should stand. No detailed reasoning, factual background, or citations were included in the published opinion, and the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in a criminal appeal filed by Mark A. Kalina against the State of Florida. The appeal was taken under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure rule governing appeals in criminal cases. The opinion is per curiam, brief, and concludes without published reasoning; the panel of judges concurred and the judgment of the lower court stands.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a criminal appeal by Darryl Johnson from a Pinellas County circuit court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The panel issued a short, per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. No opinion elaborating reasoning or issues was published; the decision notes concurrence by three judges and that the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The appellate court reviewed a pro se appeal by Jesse Cleveland Harrell from a DeSoto County circuit court criminal proceeding under the Florida rules for collateral review. The Second District issued a short per curiam disposition and affirmed the lower court’s decision without published opinion. The court provided no extended reasoning in the order and the panel concurred. The mandate affirms the circuit court’s judgment or order as challenged by Harrell, leaving the trial-court outcome intact.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in an appeal by Dondre R. Hale against the State of Florida. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Pinellas County circuit court before Judge Philip J. Federico. The appellate panel issued a per curiam decision—joined by Judges Northcutt, LaRose, and Rothstein-Youakim—simply stating 'Affirmed' without further published opinion and noted the opinion may be revised prior to official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Jason Funk from a Hillsborough County circuit court criminal postconviction or sentencing matter under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The court, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No published opinion or additional reasoning was provided in the order; the panel (Kelly, Morris, and Guard, JJ.) concurred and the decision is subject to revision before official publication.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a criminal matter. Appellant Bruce Cowart appealed a decision from the Circuit Court for Manatee County, represented by the public defender, with the State of Florida represented by the Attorney General. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 22, 2026, summarily affirming the lower court's ruling without published opinion and with three judges concurring. No additional reasoning or factual detail was provided in the published entry.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal postconviction appeal. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from a Hillsborough County circuit court order, and the appellate panel issued a brief per curiam opinion simply stating: Affirmed. All three judges concurred. No further explanation or published reasoning was included in the opinion as filed on April 22, 2026.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed Jermaine Antwane Brown, Jr.'s appeal from a Pinellas County circuit court criminal postconviction order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The panel, in a brief per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No extended reasoning or factual discussion is provided in this opinion; the court simply announced affirmance and noted the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of the appellant Timothy Joseph Ferguson's challenge in three criminal cases. The panel issued a short per curiam opinion, relying on precedent to hold that the defendant was not entitled to an express written explanation for the denial of a motion to downward departure from sentencing. The court cited Venter v. State to support its view that due process does not require a specific explanation for such denials and therefore found no reversible error.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's revocation of Jason Brandon Mervil's probation. The court held that the evidence supporting revocation was sufficient because the hearsay presented at the probation revocation hearing was corroborated by non-hearsay evidence and an experienced officer's opinion on identification was permissible. The panel relied on prior Florida decisions establishing that hearsay may be used at revocation hearings only when supported by non-hearsay proof and that trained officers may opine about controlled substances. The judgment below is therefore affirmed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Henry Wilson’s convictions for aggravated assault with a firearm, burglary of a conveyance while armed, and resisting an officer without violence. The court held that pretrial exclusion of public statements by Governor DeSantis and the county sheriff about the right to bear arms and tough-on-crime rhetoric was not an abuse of discretion because those generalized statements were not relevant to Wilson’s subjective belief or the objective reasonableness required by Florida’s defense-of-property statute. The court did remand for the trial court to enter separate written sentences for each count to conform to its oral pronouncements.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's rulings in a criminal prosecution of Luis Enrique Juarbe. The appellate panel concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting other-act evidence under Florida's child-molestation evidence statute and related precedent, and that the trial court's handling of evidentiary and mistrial issues was within its broad discretion. The court relied on statutory language and controlling case law addressing admissibility, relevance, similarity, remoteness, and the doctrine of opening the door to support its decision to affirm.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the defendant George Walton’s criminal conviction. The court reviewed whether the evidence was legally sufficient and applied the established standard: viewing the record in the light most favorable to the State, asking whether a rational factfinder could have found the crime’s elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Citing Florida precedent, the panel concluded the State presented competent, substantial evidence to support the verdict and denied Walton’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a criminal postconviction appeal brought by Ira Lee Pickett. The appeal was filed under the Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure governing appeals in criminal cases from nonfinal orders or specified postconviction rulings. The panel issued a short per curiam opinion on April 22, 2026, summarily rejecting Pickett's challenge and leaving the lower court's ruling intact. No extended opinion, reasoning, or separate opinions were published with the affirmation.

The Court of Appeal affirmed appellant Dylan James Hardy’s convictions and eight-year split sentence following guilty pleas to multiple firearm offenses. Hardy mounted facial Second Amendment challenges to California statutes banning assault-weapon activity, possession of a short-barreled shotgun, possession of a silencer, large-capacity magazine activity, and unlawful handgun transfer without a licensed dealer. The court rejected those challenges, holding short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and large-capacity magazines are not arms protected by the Second Amendment and that the assault-weapon and transfer regulations do not meaningfully burden the core right to keep and bear arms. The judgment was affirmed and certified for publication.

The Court of Appeal granted a writ of mandate directing the appellate division to reverse its summary denial and order the superior court to reconsider petitioner Aimee Bobo’s request for misdemeanor diversion under Penal Code section 1001.95. Bobo had been charged with misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter after running a red light and killing another driver. The trial court denied diversion solely because her negligent conduct caused a death. The appellate court held that denial based only on facts inherent in the offense improperly ignored the statute’s rehabilitative purposes and thus was an abuse of discretion.

The First District Court of Texas affirmed William Ordonezhernandez’s conviction and twenty-year sentence for burglary of a habitation with intent to commit another felony. Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw with an Anders brief concluding the appeal is frivolous and identifying no reversible error. The court independently reviewed the entire record, considered the appellant’s pro se filing, found no arguable grounds for appeal, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court judgment. The court instructed counsel to notify the appellant of the result and his right to seek discretionary review.

The Court of Appeals affirmed a ten-year sentence imposed on Gracie Ann Mata after she pleaded guilty to third-degree felony DWI with two prior DWI convictions. The defendant argued the sentence was grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court held the claim was forfeited because the defendant failed to raise the proportionality challenge in the trial court, leaving the appellate record insufficient for the fact-intensive proportionality review required by precedent. Because the sentence was within the statutory range and the claim was unpreserved, the court affirmed.

The First District of Texas affirmed Christian Avery Franklyn’s conviction for second-degree sexual assault. The court reviewed whether the trial judge abused discretion by admitting two of Franklyn’s remote prior misdemeanor convictions for impeachment while excluding the complainant’s similar remote conviction. The court assumed error in the evidentiary rulings but found any error harmless because the record — including conflicting testimony about intoxication, forensic DNA evidence, discrepancies in witnesses’ accounts, and other credibility-damaging facts — provided fair assurance the rulings did not influence the jury’s verdict.

The First Court of Appeals dismissed two criminal appeals by Brelin Keithian Coleman for lack of jurisdiction because his notices of appeal were untimely. Coleman was convicted and sentenced on September 25, 2025 to concurrent 10-year prison terms for sexual assault (cause no. 1824733) and burglary with intent to commit another felony (cause no. 1824734). Texas rules require a notice of appeal within 30 days of sentencing unless a timely motion for new trial is filed; no such motions were in the clerk’s records and Coleman did not file notices until February 11, 2026. The court therefore dismissed the appeals and denied pending motions as moot.

The First District of Texas dismissed two criminal appeals by Brelin Keithian Coleman for lack of jurisdiction because his notices of appeal were filed late. Coleman was sentenced on September 25, 2025 to concurrent 10-year terms following convictions for sexual assault (case no. 1824733) and burglary with intent to commit another felony (case no. 1824734). Because no motion for new trial was filed and the standard 30-day deadline to appeal expired on October 26, 2025, Coleman's notices filed February 11, 2026 were untimely. The court therefore dismissed the appeals and any pending motions as moot.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Armando Jesus Pedraza’s conviction and thirty-year sentence for assault on a family member by impeding breathing. Pedraza argued ineffective assistance of counsel at punishment because his lawyer failed to object to the complainant’s testimony about a news article and incorrectly advised him he could both testify and invoke the Fifth Amendment. The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance, assumed arguendo some attorney errors but found Pedraza did not prove prejudice—there was not a reasonable probability the sentence would have been more lenient absent the alleged errors given his extensive criminal history and the aggravating evidence presented.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of Stanley Randolph’s motion to suppress evidence obtained after police detained and searched him. Officers found Randolph sitting in a parked sedan in a high-crime cul-de-sac at night, blocked the car, and required the occupants to exit; officers later saw a backpack with suspected marijuana and then searched. The appellate court held the encounter was a detention requiring particularized, objective suspicion, which the record did not supply prior to the restraint, so the stop and subsequent evidence collection were unlawful and suppression was required.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Morris Charles Spann’s convictions for malice murder, felony murder (merged), aggravated assaults, and related firearm-possession counts arising from the July 30, 2011 shootings that killed his mother and wounded Willie Ricks. The Court reviewed a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge and held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could find Spann guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The ruling relied on eyewitness testimony, physical evidence linking Spann to the gun, his flight from the scene, and inconsistencies in his account to reject alternative theories of innocence.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed most of Calvin Sneed’s convictions for the 2017 fatal shooting of Gregory Jones but found merger and sentencing errors. The court rejected Sneed’s claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to two prosecutor remarks during closing argument, concluding those remarks were permissible inferences from the evidence and that objections would have been meritless. However, the court held that two firearm convictions (Counts 7 and 8) should have merged with Count 9, vacated those convictions and sentences, and remanded for correction of the sentence summary to reflect the proper 15-year term for Count 9.

The Georgia Supreme Court reviewed Alex Khalil Smith’s appeal of his 2022 convictions for malice murder and related offenses arising from the July 8, 2020 shooting death of Cassandra Arnold. The Court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the convictions—pointing to motive from a shorted drug deal, cell-phone location data placing Smith at the scene near the time of the shooting, incriminating phone calls, and gunshot-residue on clothing and a mask. However, the Court vacated and remanded the trial court’s denial of Smith’s motion for new trial because the trial court failed to exercise and state its discretion under Georgia’s general grounds for a new trial.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of I’Kenyo Shine’s 2025 motion for leave to file an out-of-time appeal from a 2006 guilty plea to felony murder. Shine argued his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of appellate rights, relying on later precedent and a 2025 statute authorizing out-of-time appeals. The Court held Shine’s claim was barred by earlier habeas litigation and res judicata, and that counsel could not be ineffective for failing to advise of a right that did not exist under controlling law in 2006. The Court also found Shine waived a recusal claim by not raising it below.