Court Filings

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed a criminal appeal by Aron Rodriguez-Villasana from the Polk County circuit court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The court issued a per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, affirming the lower court's judgment. No separate written opinion or explanation of reasoning is provided in the published entry; the panel of three judges concurred. The decision becomes final when the time to file a motion for rehearing expires or any filed rehearing motion is resolved.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed Wesley Bunsee's appeal from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County and issued a per curiam decision on April 21, 2026. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment without published opinion. The panel (Roberts, Ray, and Treadwell, JJ.) concurred, and the opinion notes that the judgment is not final until any timely post-judgment appellate motions are resolved. Counsel for both parties are listed in the record.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Wesley Bunsee from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The appellate court issued a short, per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, concluding simply: AFFIRMED. No opinion explanation or discussion of the issues appears in the published entry; the judgment of the lower court therefore stands. The panel consisted of Judges Roberts, Ray, and Treadwell, and counsel for the parties are noted in the filing.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed Robert D. Allen's appeal from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County. After considering the record, the appellate court issued a per curiam decision on April 21, 2026, affirming the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief: it announces affirmation without published opinion or extended explanation, and the three-judge panel concurred. The decision noted that it is not final until any timely authorized post-judgment appellate motions are resolved.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Terry L. Young's appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County and issued a per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026. The court affirmed the lower court's decision. The short opinion contains only the disposition (affirmed), notes that the opinion is not final until the rehearing period expires, and records that Young appeared pro se while the State did not file a responding appearance.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed a County Court judgment in a criminal/procedural matter. The appeal was filed by Kendrick Tyron Perry, Sr., pro se, from a decision of the County Court for Lee County (Judge Devin S. George). The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, concluding the lower-court judgment should stand. No detailed reasoning, facts, or issues are provided in the published entry beyond the affirmance and the court of appeal judges concurring.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Justus Pierce's appeal from a Lee County circuit court criminal matter and affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion is per curiam, brief, and provides no extended reasoning in the published text. The panel (Traver, C.J., White and Gannam, JJ.) voted to affirm the judgment below. The decision was issued April 21, 2026, and counsel for both parties are identified in the filing.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Jamal T. Jackson’s appeal from the circuit court in Orange County and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The opinion is per curiam, brief, and provides no published reasoning beyond affirmance. The appeal was taken pursuant to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and the panel affirmed the judgment below. The court noted the usual rehearing period and that the decision is not final until that period expires and any timely rehearing is resolved.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the trial court's decision in the criminal case of Casey Lynn Hennings. The appeal arose from proceedings in the Circuit Court for Orange County. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion, concluding there was no reversible error warranting relief. No separate written opinion or reasoning was published; the court affirmed the lower court's ruling and the panel members concurred.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Antwan D. Johnson's appeal from a Polk County circuit court decision and, in a short per curiam order, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief, contains no published reasoning, and the panel of judges concurred. The decision was issued April 21, 2026, and notes that it is not final until the time to file a motion for rehearing expires and any timely motion is resolved.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed Jerry Ray Walker's appeal from a Bay County circuit court decision. After consideration, the panel issued a per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's ruling. No opinion elaborating reasons was published; the judgment of the circuit court stands. The decision was entered April 21, 2026, and the court noted that the mandate is not final until resolution of any timely post-judgment motions under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed a criminal appeal by appellant Aaroney Okevious Reed from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, and affirmed the lower court's judgment. No published opinion explaining the court's reasoning appears in the document; the court simply announced its disposition and noted concurrence by the three judges. The decision is subject to any timely post-judgment motions permitted by Florida appellate rules.

The First District Court of Appeal issued a one-sentence per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment involving appellant Davion Hadden and the State of Florida. The appeal came from the Circuit Court for Leon County, before Judge Stephen Everett. No opinion explaining the court's reasoning or the issues on appeal appears in the document; the court simply affirmed the judgment and noted concurrence by the three judges. The decision is subject to timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order that dismissed multiple burglary, theft, and identity-theft charges after a defendant, Keena Landrine, was placed on mental health diversion. Although Landrine made substantial progress while in custody, the appellate court held the diversion statute requires defendants to substantially comply with diversion conditions before charges may be dismissed. Landrine repeatedly violated diversion requirements—relapsing on drugs, refusing recommended detox/treatment, and committing dozens of new criminal offenses—so the trial court abused its discretion by finding satisfactory performance. The matter is remanded for further proceedings on the dismissed charges.

The Sixth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the conviction of Justin Clayton Goldthrite for retaliation after reviewing the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial. Goldthrite argued the State failed to comply with two Texas criminal procedure statutes governing discovery and evidence handling (Articles 38.371 and 39.14). The court applied the same legal standard and analysis it used in a companion appeal and concluded the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial, so the judgment was affirmed.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of Texas affirmed Justin Clayton Goldthrite’s conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after the trial court denied his motion for new trial. Goldthrite argued the State failed to disclose incident reports under Texas discovery statutes and that those reports affected the voluntariness of his guilty plea and his ability to use relationship evidence. The court applied Texas precedent holding a guilty plea is voluntary if the defendant had sufficient awareness of circumstances and found Goldthrite was aware of the incidents and had questioned the complaining witness, so no error was shown.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Samuel Leon Dugan’s convictions and life-without-parole sentence under Washington’s Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA). Dugan had been convicted after a bench trial of first-degree promoting prostitution (with domestic violence findings), unlawful possession of a firearm, third-degree assault, and harassment. The trial court found two prior qualifying convictions and imposed mandatory LWOP. The court rejected Dugan’s challenges that the POAA is cruel or discriminatorily applied, and rejected his Sixth Amendment claim that a jury should have decided the timing of prior convictions, relying on state precedent allowing judicial factfinding of prior convictions.

The Washington Court of Appeals reviewed Harlan Blackburn’s convictions for multiple counts of incest and child rape. The court held that police violated his state constitutional privacy rights by obtaining hotel and purchase data without a warrant, but that the admission of that evidence was harmless. It reversed one conviction (Count 8 for incest in the first degree) for insufficient evidence as to the specific dates charged, affirmed the other convictions, and remanded for resentencing on Counts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 because the combined confinement and community custody terms exceeded statutory maximums. The court explained which testimony supported each upheld conviction and the basis for the sentencing remand.

The Georgia Court of Appeals denied the appellant's emergency motion seeking a stay or supersedeas while the appeal is docketed. The order is a short administrative disposition entered on April 20, 2026, declining temporary relief; it does not address the merits of the underlying appeal. The clerk certified the order as an extract from the court minutes.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Jimmy Wallace's appeal as premature. Wallace was convicted and filed a timely motion for new trial, then filed a motion to withdraw that motion and the next day filed a notice of appeal. Because the trial court had not yet ruled on the motion for new trial or the motion to withdraw it, the case remained pending below and the appellate court lacked jurisdiction under Georgia law. The court relied on statutory timing rules for appeals and precedent holding that the appellate clock does not start until the trial court finally disposes of a motion for new trial.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Matthew Pajestka’s conviction for operating a vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration. After two prior remands and appointment of a visiting judge, Pajestka sought a continuance shortly before a November 21, 2024 jury trial because his defense expert was unavailable; the municipal court denied the requests and proceeded. The appellate court held that denial of the continuance was not an abuse of discretion, declined to review ineffective-assistance claims raised on direct appeal because the same firm represented him at trial and on appeal, and found the breath-test evidence sufficient and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed Todd A. Dunlap’s convictions for multiple sexual offenses based on abuse of his niece between about ages 12–14. Dunlap waived a jury; the trial court found him guilty on eight counts and sentenced him to consecutive terms on rape counts, finding him a sexual predator. On appeal he raised ten assignments of error challenging sufficiency and weight of evidence, pre-indictment delay, destroyed evidence, other-acts evidence, indictment specificity, chain of custody, cumulative error, and ineffective assistance. The appellate court found the evidence credible, no actual prejudice from delay or destroyed items, no bad-faith destruction, proper handling of other-acts and chain-of-custody issues, and no ineffective assistance.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Trumbull County Common Pleas Court’s sentence of an aggregate 7-to-10½ year prison term for David Lucero, who pleaded guilty to ten second-degree felony counts involving creation and distribution of sexual material depicting minors. The appellate court reviewed Lucero’s claim that the trial court failed to properly consider sentencing statutes and alternatives to prison but found the trial court expressly stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and the imposed sentences fall within the statutory range. Because the record shows consideration of the required factors, the court found no reversible error and affirmed.

The Court of Appeals reversed a Trumbull County Central District Court order that had prohibited a surety, Chuck Brown II Bail Bonds, from posting any future bonds until a $1,000 forfeited bond for defendant Breonne F. Davis was paid. The trial court revoked Davis’s bond after she failed to appear, declared the bond forfeited, and imposed the prohibition without following the statutory notice-and-hearing procedures. The appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion by not providing ordinary-mail notice and a 45–60 day period to show cause under Ohio law, and remanded for compliance with the statute.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the defendant Carl S. Williams Jr.’s aggregate eight-year prison sentence because the trial court imposed consecutive terms without making all statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C). Williams had pled guilty to multiple theft-related felonies while on post-release control and received consecutive eight-month terms plus two years for post-release-control violation. The appellate court found the trial court failed on the record to state that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public or to punish the offender, so the sentence was contrary to law and must be vacated for resentencing. The court upheld the post-release-control prison term itself.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court's judgment denying relief to Robert Phelps. Phelps had pleaded guilty in 2020 and was sentenced to 15 years under a plea agreement. He later sought recusal of the trial judge; an entry labeled as denying judicial release appeared in filings but was not in the record. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous. The appellate court found no arguable appealable error, held it lacked authority to review recusal under R.C. 2701.03, granted counsel's motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court judgment.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed Kelsey Amos’s conviction for Theft (R.C. 2913.02(A)(1)) after a bench trial. The court reviewed sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges to evidence that Amos aided or abetted a co-defendant (K.B.) who took the victim’s e-bike. The court concluded the record supports a finding that Amos spoke with K.B., positioned the vehicle next to the bike, followed him after the bike was taken, and associated with K.B. before and after the offense; the trial court reasonably credited the prosecution’s theory of complicity and did not err in finding Amos guilty.

The Illinois Appellate Court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded after reviewing Brandon Johnson’s motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition. Johnson, convicted in 1995 of murder and related offenses, argued his petition showed actual innocence and satisfied the cause-and-prejudice standard for claims that police misconduct undermined identifications and that Brady violations occurred. The court found Johnson presented a colorable actual innocence claim and a colorable due-process claim based on evidence of a pattern and practice of detective misconduct that could have affected eyewitness identifications, so it reversed the denial and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed rejection of the Brady claim under controlling precedent.

The Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court affirmed Bryce Andrews’ convictions and sentence for the murders of his father and stepfather. Andrews challenged the trial court’s order requiring him to submit to a psychological examination by the State’s expert before a suppression hearing on whether his February 5, 2021 statements were voluntary. The court held the order was proper under 725 ILCS 5/115-6 because the facts and circumstances gave reasonable ground to believe a mental-status defense might be raised, and alternatively the court had inherent authority to manage evidentiary presentation. The court also found no prejudice from the examination.

The Illinois Appellate Court reversed a trial court’s order detaining defendant Quadajah Johnson pending trial on six first-degree murder counts under the Pretrial Fairness Act and remanded for the trial court to set conditions of release. The panel majority found the State failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Johnson posed a continuing, unmitigable danger to any person or the community. The court emphasized her limited nonviolent criminal history, cooperation with police, a prior protective order against the victim, her pregnancy, and the prospect that conditions (including a firearms ban) could mitigate risk. A dissent would have affirmed detention.