Court Filings

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.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a criminal case. Calvin W. Thomas appealed a Seminole County circuit court decision; the appellate panel issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 28, 2026, simply stating AFFIRMED. The court did not elaborate its reasoning in the published entry and the three-judge panel concurred. No additional factual findings, legal analysis, or instructions were included in the opinion.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Antonio Christopher Youngblood's appeal from a Duval County circuit court criminal case. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's judgment. No published opinion or extended reasoning is provided in the document; the court simply issued an affirmance with all three judges concurring. The decision becomes final unless a timely, authorized motion for rehearing or certification is filed under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed a pro se defendant's appeal under Florida Rule 3.800 from a Citrus County circuit court decision. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, unanimously concluding that the lower court's ruling should stand. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published in this document; the court simply entered an affirmance of the circuit court's judgment. The decision is subject to any timely authorized motion under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Curtis McNealy's appeal from the circuit court's ruling on his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion. McNealy represented himself; the State did not file an appearance. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision, concluding simply that the lower court's decision was correct and affirming that judgment. No extended opinion, reasoning, or citation of legal authorities was provided in the document beyond the court's one-line disposition.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Keita Jermaine Gaymon Jr.'s appeal from a Lee County circuit court criminal case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court issued a per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, concluding that the trial court's judgment or ruling should stand. No extended opinion, legal analysis, or separate concurrence/dissent accompanied the brief order. The panel of judges Wozniak, White, and Mize concurred and the clerk noted the usual rehearing period is available.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Jason Daniel Aycox's appeal from the Lee County circuit court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). After considering the record, the court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. No separate opinion or extended reasoning was provided; the panel of judges concurred and the opinion notes the decision is not final until the rehearing period expires.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Derek D. Durant's appeal from the Lee County circuit court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, affirming the lower court's judgment. No separate opinion or explanation of reasoning was provided in the published entry; the panel of three judges concurred and the court noted the usual period for filing a motion for rehearing.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in the criminal case of Christopher Coaxum. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, concluding that the lower court's ruling should stand. No published opinion, explanation, or separate opinion accompanied the affirmance; the panel judges Nardella, Smith, and Kamoutsas concurred. The appellant was represented by counsel from Cohen Law, P.A., and the State by assistant attorneys general. The decision is subject to the normal rehearing deadline.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Quantavious Piglor's appeal from a Polk County circuit court criminal matter and unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion is per curiam, brief, and provides no extended reasoning in the published entry. The panel of Judges White, Brownlee, and Kamoutsas concurred. The public defender and assistant attorney general represented the parties. The court's judgment affirms the trial court judgment or order under review and ends this stage of the appeal unless a timely rehearing is filed.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Kristavion J. Harris's appeal from a Polk County circuit court criminal case and issued a one-line per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The opinion contains no published reasoning beyond the formal disposition and concurrence by the three judges. The appellate court therefore upheld the trial court's judgment and sentence without further explanation, and the mandate will issue after the rehearing period expires or is resolved.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Judith Ivette Torres Garcia's appeal from the Polk County Circuit Court and issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. The panel unanimously agreed to affirm the decision of the trial court. No opinion text or reasoning is included in the document beyond the formal affirmance and the names of the judges and counsel. The mandate is subject to the ordinary rehearing period described at the end of the opinion.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment in a criminal appeal by Juan Figueroa-Rivera. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the circuit court in Osceola County. The appellate court issued a short per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, simply stating 'AFFIRMED' without extended opinion. The panel of judges concurred and the appellant proceeded pro se; the state did not file a response on appeal.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a criminal case. Eric Alexander Roe appealed a Polk County conviction (lower tribunal 2021-CF-005791). The appellate court issued a short per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, concluding the trial court's rulings should stand. No extended opinion or detailed reasoning was published; the panel issued a simple affirmance with all three judges concurring.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Polk County in the criminal case of Carleton E. Boyce, III. The appeal was briefed and argued by the public defender and the state; the district court issued a per curiam opinion, announcing affirmation without published opinion or extended discussion. The panel (Stargel, White, and Mize, JJ.) concurred. No separate analysis, holdings, or reasons are provided in the short decision beyond the affirmance.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the trial court's judgment in the criminal case of Jerrell Lamont Smith. The appeal, taken from the Marion County Circuit Court, was considered on the briefs and oral argument, and the appellate panel issued a per curiam decision simply stating "AFFIRMED." No extended opinion or new legal analysis was published in the decision; the judges concurred and directed that the decision is not final until any timely, authorized post-judgment motions are resolved under Florida appellate rules.

The Georgia Court of Appeals reviewed an Application for Discretionary Appeal filed by Keithan B. Patmon from the State. After consideration, the court issued an order dated April 27, 2026, denying the application. The document is a brief administrative entry recording the court's disposition without additional written opinion or reasoning.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Jonathan D. Reed’s appeal challenging parts of his 2007 convictions and sentence. Reed had previously litigated the same challenge to his hijacking sentence and earlier appeals were dismissed or resolved, so the court found it lacked jurisdiction to relitigate those issues. The court also held that claims attacking the validity of a conviction or asserting merger of sentences are not properly raised in a motion to vacate as void, and Reed’s consecutive-sentence challenge did not present a colorable voidness claim because each sentence was within statutory limits.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Gustavo Cisneros’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of his 2026 motion to vacate a void sentence. Cisneros argued several convictions should have merged (attempt with armed robbery, sexual battery with aggravated battery, and burglary with armed robbery). The court held that merger challenges attack convictions, not sentences, and therefore are not properly raised in a motion to vacate a void sentence. Because the motion did not present a colorable void-sentence claim, the Court of Appeals concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Austin Eugene Spargo's direct appeal from a trial court order revoking his probation because such appeals must be pursued by applying for a discretionary appeal under state law. The court explained that compliance with the discretionary-appeal procedure is jurisdictional, cited statute and precedent, and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the direct appeal, so the appeal was dismissed.

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Ralph J. Gipple’s motions to revise his sentencing entries to increase jail-time credit. Gipple argued that all days he spent confined across three separate cases should be applied to the concurrent prison terms, relying on State v. Fugate. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Fugate applies only where pretrial confinement was attributable to multiple offenses simultaneously; here, Gipple’s confinement periods were not entirely overlapping and the trial court properly applied jail-time credit only to the offenses for which he was confined. The convictions and concurrent sentences remain affirmed.