Court Filings

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 Court of Appeal held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to increase defendant Sami Wayne Mohammed’s sentence after execution of his original sentence had begun. Mohammed initially received an aggregate seven-year, four-month term on January 12, 2024. The CDCR later notified the trial court that parts of that sentence were unauthorized under the Three Strikes law, and the trial court resentenced Mohammed on October 21, 2024 to an aggregate 10 years, eight months. The appellate court concluded the trial court could not lawfully resentence him after jurisdiction had ended, treated the appeal as a habeas petition, granted relief, and ordered reinstatement of the January 12, 2024 sentence.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Troy Rimes's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Rimes was convicted after a jury trial and the trial court denied his motion for a new trial on August 17, 2023. After Rimes moved for an out-of-time appeal, the trial court vacated and re-entered its denial order on January 26, 2026. Rimes filed a notice of appeal on March 31, 2026, but because Georgia law requires a notice of appeal within 30 days of the order's entry and his notice was filed 64 days after re-entry, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely.

The Court of Appeals considered Eric Maxwell's direct appeal from the trial court's denial of his motion for an out-of-time appeal following convictions that included malice murder. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because Georgia's Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases in which the death penalty could be imposed. Because malice murder carries a potential death sentence, the Court of Appeals transferred the appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia for disposition.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of William Bernard White’s plea in bar asserting immunity under Georgia’s 9-1-1 Medical Amnesty Law (OCGA § 16-13-5). White was arrested on an outstanding probation-violation warrant after a 911 call reported an apparently unconscious driver; paramedics found no medical emergency, and a search incident to arrest uncovered fentanyl. The court held the statute protects defendants only when the incriminating evidence “resulted solely from seeking such medical assistance,” and here the evidence flowed from the arrest on the outstanding warrant, not from the 911 call.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Delaware County Common Pleas Court’s convictions and sentences of Billie Jo Kirven following her consolidated guilty pleas in two cases. Kirven argued the trial court convicted her without first accepting guilty pleas and that her pleas were not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary under Crim.R. 11. The appellate court reviewed the plea hearing transcript, found the record showed Kirven personally acknowledged and accepted the plea terms, received the required constitutional advisements, and that the court accepted the pleas after completing the advisements. The court held any irregular sequencing did not invalidate the pleas.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Belmont County Common Pleas Court's October 3, 2025 denial of Kawame Turner’s pro se motion for additional jail-time credit. Turner had pled guilty pursuant to a jointly recommended 36-month sentence in Case No. 19 CR 209 with 430 days credited, and later was convicted in a separate case (23 CR 258) for failure to appear and received 224 days credit. The appeals court held Turner’s current challenge was a substantive dispute about categories of credited time that must have been raised on direct appeal and is therefore barred by res judicata; Turner also waived review by agreeing to the jointly recommended sentence.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s November 5, 2025 dismissal without a hearing of Sammie Smith Jr.’s pro se August 5, 2025 filing titled “Motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial pursuant to Crim.R. 33(B).” The appellate court held the filing relied on Ohio’s postconviction statute (R.C. 2953.21) and was therefore properly treated as a petition for postconviction relief. The petition was untimely (filed nearly 14 years after the trial transcripts were filed), Smith failed to show an exception to the statute of limitations or to present operative facts or credible evidence entitling him to relief, and his claims were barred by res judicata.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals denied Latoya J. Yancy’s App.R. 26(B) application to reopen her direct criminal appeal. Yancy claimed appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging various trial errors, including prosecutorial misconduct, failure to move to suppress, and failure to present mitigating evidence. The court found no record support that appellate counsel performed deficiently or that Yancy suffered prejudice; many issues had already been considered on direct appeal or lacked record evidence. Because the record did not show a colorable ineffective-assistance claim, the application to reopen was denied.

The Superior Court affirmed the denial of Tyrell Giles’s PCRA petition challenging his convictions for aggravated assault and related offenses. Giles filed a late (nunc pro tunc) post-conviction petition claiming trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting when witnesses testified that he was on state parole. The court held the petition was untimely and Giles failed to plead or prove any statutory exception to the PCRA time bar, so the court lacked jurisdiction to review the claim. The Superior Court therefore affirmed denial of relief, noting the lower court’s merits ruling was unnecessary.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Khalil Wisdom's conviction after a jury trial for two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and the concurrent 12-year sentences imposed as a second violent felony offender. The court also affirmed the denial of his CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment alleging ineffective assistance and newly discovered evidence. The court concluded counsel provided effective representation under state and federal standards, any alleged failures did not prejudice defendant given overwhelming video and other evidence, and the trial court properly declined various jury instructions and a new-evidence hearing.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Yordani Urena’s conviction following a guilty plea to second-degree assault and the three-year probation sentence, but modified the probation by striking fees and mandatory surcharge. The court declined to review an unpreserved facial constitutional challenge to a probation condition restricting association and places, and alternatively rejected the challenge on the merits. The court found the association/frequenting condition reasonably necessary given the violent nature of the offense, but concluded that imposing court fees and the mandatory surcharge was not related to rehabilitation and therefore removed that condition.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed defendant Julsean Thompson’s conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to first-degree custodial interference. The court unanimously modified the trial court’s judgment by reducing Thompson’s term of imprisonment from two-to-four years to 1 1/3-to-3 years as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, finding the original sentence excessive. In all other respects the judgment was affirmed, leaving the conviction and other components of the trial court’s decision intact.

The Appellate Division, First Department modified a Bronx County judgment that had convicted Angel Rivas, upon a guilty plea, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentenced him to five years probation. The court struck six specific probation conditions because they were not reasonably related to Rivas's rehabilitation or necessary to ensure he would lead a law-abiding life. The court reasoned there was no evidence supporting dependence-support, gang affiliation, substance abuse, mental-health treatment, or ignition-interlock requirements, and the People did not oppose removing several of the conditions.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the Bronx County Supreme Court's June 14, 2021 judgment in People v. Gonzalez. Carlos Gonzalez appealed his conviction and sentence; the appellate panel reviewed the arguments, found the sentence was not excessive, and unanimously affirmed the trial court judgment. The court provided no extended opinion or new legal rule, simply announcing affirmation and referring appellant's counsel to the court's rule § 606.5 regarding appellate practice matters.

The State of Texas, as appellant, moved to dismiss its own appeal in a criminal case from the County Court at Law No. 9 of Travis County. The motion to dismiss was signed by the Travis County Attorney and filed under the applicable Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure. The Court of Appeals granted the State’s motion and dismissed the appeal. The opinion is a short memorandum decision, noting the procedural compliance with the rule and disposing of the appeal accordingly.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals dismissed Efrain Rodulfo Jr.'s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Rodulfo, who pleaded guilty under a plea bargain and was sentenced to 25 years on November 18, 2025, filed a pro se motion construed as a notice of appeal on April 14, 2026. The appellate court found the notice untimely because it was filed well after the 30-day deadline (or 90 days only if a timely motion for new trial is filed), and no extension was sought. The trial court also certified that Rodulfo waived and did not have a right to appeal, which required dismissal as well.

The court received a motion from appointed appellate counsel in Brandon Dmichael Lively’s appeal in which counsel stated continued representation was not in the appellant’s best interest and requested substitution. Because the trial court, not the appellate court, has authority to appoint or replace counsel for an indigent defendant on appeal, the court dismissed the motion, abated the appeal, and remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether good cause exists to replace counsel and to appoint substitute counsel if appropriate. The trial court must file records of its hearing and any appointment/removal orders by May 22, 2026.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Dana Meador’s pretrial habeas petition seeking a reduction of a $750,000 bond in a first-degree murder prosecution. The court reviewed the statutory and common-law factors for bail, including the violent nature of the offense, potential punishment, community safety, flight risk, and financial ability to post bond. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court, the appeals court found Meador failed to prove the bond was excessive or used as an instrument of oppression and concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

The Court of Appeals (Seventh District) ordered the appeal of Cody Lee Cochran abated and the case remanded because the reporter's record lacks three State exhibits (22, 23, 24) that are encrypted by the FBI and unreadable without special software. The court directed the trial court to obtain accessible, reviewable copies of those exhibits and to have the court reporter file them with the appellate clerk by May 28, 2026. If the State cannot provide usable copies, the trial court must hold a hearing under the appellate rule to determine whether the exhibits are functionally lost or destroyed and make written findings for the supplemental record.

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.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Erique Goshay's appeal from his criminal conviction and sentence in Duval County. After considering the briefs and record, the appellate court issued a per curiam opinion that affirms the lower court's decision without published opinion or stated reasons. The judgment of the circuit court is left in place and the panel of judges unanimously concurred. The opinion notes that it is not final until any timely post-opinion motions are resolved.