Court Filings

The Fifth District Court of Appeal granted Michael Anthony Foster, Jr.'s petition for a belated appeal. The court directed that this opinion be filed with the trial court and treated as the notice of appeal from the February 28, 2025 order that denied the defendant's motion for postconviction relief in Duval County Circuit Court case number 2023-CF-003421-A. The court acted under its original jurisdiction to permit Foster to proceed with an appeal despite the missed appellate deadline, citing the Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure that governs belated appeals.

The Appellate Division, Third Department reversed a Supreme Court order and granted petitioner Junarian Walker's motion for counsel fees under CPLR 8601. Walker, an incarcerated person in a residential mental health unit, had a 120-day special housing sanction imposed after threats; Supreme Court annulled the sanction as violating the HALT Act and SHU Exclusion Law but denied fees, finding the state's position substantially justified and citing special circumstances. The appellate court held the state's position was not substantially justified and no special circumstances made a fee award unjust, so the case is remitted to determine the fee amount.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal summarily affirmed the trial court's denial of Willie Nelson Hill's motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Hill, representing himself, appealed the circuit court's postconviction ruling. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 30, 2026, without published opinion, concluding the lower court's disposition should stand. The judgment is subject to any timely motion for rehearing or other authorized relief under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Wilbert Griffin of a circuit court order denying his Rule 3.850 motion (postconviction relief). The court, in a short per curiam decision with no written opinion, affirmed the denial. The opinion notes the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. No analysis or reasoning was provided in the published entry.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order denying Bachir Osias's motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Osias, proceeding pro se, appealed the denial of his postconviction relief motion filed in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam disposition, concluding there was no reversible error in the denial and therefore affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion was unanimous and notes it is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The California Supreme Court held that trial courts may order pretrial detention of noncapital defendants only in the specific circumstances described by article I, section 12 (subdivisions (b) and (c)) of the California Constitution. Where detention is not authorized under section 12, a court may condition release on monetary bail only after an individualized assessment and must set bail in an amount that is reasonable and generally attainable given the defendant’s circumstances. The decision reconciles section 12 with article I, section 28(f)(3), reaffirming that public and victim safety remain primary considerations but do not expand the categories of offenses subject to detention.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Gregory Simpson's appeal from a Marion County circuit court postconviction proceeding under Florida Rule 3.800. The court, in a brief per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's decision, citing Galindez v. State and Washington v. Recuenco to support its ruling. No appellee appearance was entered and the appellant proceeded pro se. The opinion concludes the appellate court saw no reversible error and affirmed the circuit court's disposition without extended discussion.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed Gene Ramirez's appeal from a Leon County circuit court judgment involving the Florida Department of Corrections. The appellate court issued a short per curiam decision on April 27, 2026, affirming the lower court's ruling. No published opinion or extended explanation of reasoning is provided in the document; the judgment simply states AFFIRMED and notes concurrence by the three judges. Procedural rules for timely post-decision motions are referenced but no further substance is given.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a Wyoming County Supreme Court judgment denying Richard F. Mills' petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his confinement at Attica Correctional Facility. The appellate court unanimously affirmed without costs, adopting the reasons stated by the trial court (Justice Terrence M. Parker). No new factual findings or legal analysis appear in the short appellate disposition; the judgment below denying relief therefore stands.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, denied a CPLR article 78 petition by Leon Thomas challenging a prison disciplinary determination after a tier III hearing. The court confirmed the determination that Thomas violated certain incarcerated individual rules, noting Thomas pleaded guilty to two violations which barred review of the substantial-evidence claim as to those offenses, and it rejected his remaining challenges. The petition was dismissed and the determination confirmed without costs.

The Fourth Department dismissed as moot Anthony Flowers's appeal from a CPLR article 78 judgment that had sought to annul the Parole Board's denial of parole. The court explained the challenged parole determination expired while the appeal was pending and the Board later denied Flowers a subsequent parole request, removing any live controversy. The court also found that the exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply and therefore affirmed dismissal without reaching the merits of the underlying parole decision.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied Jeffrey Lee Gaston’s pro se petition requesting habeas and mandamus relief to compel speedy trial on pending Hays County charges. The court found jurisdictional and procedural defects: Gaston filed in the wrong court, failed to supply the certified record or supporting documents required for mandamus or habeas review, and cited authorities showing his usual remedy is direct appeal rather than pretrial habeas. Because he did not meet his burden to show entitlement to extraordinary relief, the court denied the petition without prejudice.

The court dismissed Devoris Antoine Newson’s attempted appeal from the trial court’s verbal denial of his pretrial habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court found no written order ruling on the habeas application in the record, and Texas law requires a written order to invoke appellate jurisdiction in habeas matters. The court also noted the underlying criminal charge was dismissed after Newson filed his habeas application, rendering the pretrial habeas petition moot. Because Newson did not show cause why the appeal should proceed, the court dismissed the appeal and any pending motions as moot.

The court dismissed Devoris Antoine Newson’s attempted appeal from the trial court’s verbal denial of his pretrial habeas application for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court explained that an oral pronouncement is not appealable absent a signed written order, and the record contained no written ruling. The court also noted the underlying criminal charge was dismissed after Newson filed his habeas application, rendering the habeas petition moot. Because there was no appealable written order and the case was dismissed, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal and any pending motions as moot.

The court dismissed Devoris Antoine Newson’s attempted appeal of a pretrial habeas corpus ruling for lack of jurisdiction. Newson sought review after an oral denial of his pretrial writ under Texas law, but no written trial-court order appears in the record. The court also found the issue moot because Newson entered a plea bargain, was tried and convicted, and therefore the pretrial relief he sought (including bail reduction) could no longer be granted. Because there was no appealable written order and the matter is moot, the appeal was dismissed.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam order affirming a prior trial-court denial of Geneva M. Kellum’s postconviction motion in Duval County criminal case number 16-2009-CF-006375-A. The court warned that Kellum’s continued filing of repetitive, abusive, or frivolous pro se postconviction claims arising from that case could lead to sanctions, including a prohibition on further pro se filings in this court and referral to prison officials for disciplinary measures. The caution cites state statute and precedent supporting restrictions on serial frivolous filings.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Gerald Harrell's postconviction motion but found a clerical error in the dismissal directive. The judgment below correctly dismissed Harrell's motion for postconviction relief, yet the written order mistakenly identified the November 20, 2023 motion as dismissed with prejudice when it should have referred to the November 22, 2023 motion. The case is therefore remanded solely to correct that scrivener's error in the order; no change was made to the substantive dismissal.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal granted Jose Manuel Troche's petition for a belated appeal. The court directed that this opinion be filed with the trial court and treated as the notice of appeal from the December 15, 2025 order that denied Troche's postconviction motion in Hernando County Circuit Court case 2022-CF-000614-A. The grant restores Troche's right to pursue appellate review of the denial of postconviction relief under Florida appellate procedure.

The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal granted Charles Jeffrey McPherson's petition for a belated appeal. The court ordered that this opinion be filed with the trial court and treated as the notice of appeal from the February 17, 2026 judgment and sentence in Clay County Circuit Court case number 10-2025-CF-874-A, under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(6)(D). The court issued its disposition without the State appearing and noted that the decision is not final until any timely authorized post-opinion motions are resolved.

The Tenth Court of Appeals dismissed William Penn Dixon’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the intermediate appellate court lacks original habeas jurisdiction in criminal matters. Dixon had asked the court to order the trial court to act, hold a hearing, suppress evidence, and dismiss pending criminal charges alleging an illegal search. The court explained that jurisdiction to hear original criminal habeas petitions rests with the Court of Criminal Appeals, district courts, county courts, or judges in those courts, so the appellate court could not grant the requested relief and dismissed the filing for want of jurisdiction.

The court denied Sterling Robinson’s request for a writ of mandamus seeking an order that Judge Jaiza N. Page vacate his criminal judgment. Robinson argued the trial court’s judgment was void because he withdrew his consent to the proceedings. The magistrate recommended and the court agreed that a criminal judgment is not a “consent judgment” and that a defendant’s alleged refusal or withdrawal of consent does not deprive a common pleas court of subject-matter jurisdiction over felony charges. Because Robinson failed to allege a clear legal right or a clear legal duty owed by the judge, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The Texas Court of Appeals granted habeas relief to James Robert Lawson, IV, holding that a capias order issued August 29, 2025, in a child-support enforcement proceeding was void because it was entered after Lawson removed the underlying case to federal court. The court explained that once a defendant files a proper notice of removal and files it in the state court, the state court loses jurisdiction and must not proceed further unless the federal court remands. Because the capias was entered during the removal period and before remand, the court ordered the trial court to vacate the capias and related orders.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed a pro se appeal by Keyon M. Paige from an order of the Duval County Circuit Court in a 3.800 proceeding (postconviction relief). The appellate court issued a short per curiam decision on April 23, 2026, affirming the lower court's ruling. No written opinion or extended reasoning is provided in the document; the court simply stated AFFIRMED and noted concurrence by three judges and the possibility of filing certain post-decision motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a circuit court's denial of Pedro Ortiz's rule 3.850 postconviction motion. Ortiz, representing himself, appealed the denial by the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam disposition affirming the lower court's order without published opinion, noting the decision is not final until any timely rehearing motion is resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal considered Willie D. Upson's appeal from the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion in the Circuit Court for Volusia County. After review, the appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The opinion contains no published reasoning beyond the single-word disposition and notes that the decision is not final pending any timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, denied Margaret Hosseini Browder's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied as moot her motion for an emergency stay. Browder filed the habeas petition on April 8, 2026, and an emergency stay motion on April 20, 2026. After considering the petition, motion, and appendix, the court concluded she had not shown entitlement to relief under the applicable appellate rules and therefore denied the petition; because the petition was denied, the stay motion was moot.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, affirmed a lower court ruling in an appeal brought by Silvia Perez under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The opinion is brief: the court issued a per curiam decision affirming the circuit court's ruling without published opinion. The judges concurred, and the decision may be revised before official publication. No specific factual or legal reasoning is provided in the document itself.

The Fifth District reversed the circuit court’s summary denial of ground four of Christopher Owens’s Rule 3.850 postconviction motion and remanded for further proceedings. Owens had alleged his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor comments during voir dire that arguably commented on his constitutional right to remain silent. The panel found the record attached below still lacked sufficient context to evaluate prejudice under Strickland and therefore did not conclusively refute Owens’s claim, so the court ordered either an evidentiary hearing or additional records be attached to the denial order.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Zakariya Daud Clarke from the denial of a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 (postconviction relief) in the Circuit Court for Clay County. The appellate court, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion is brief and does not include detailed reasoning in the published entry; the appellate panel unanimously concurred and issued the decision on April 21, 2026.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal considered an appeal by Trevorisse Thomas from the denial of a Rule 3.850 motion in Duval County. The court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 21, 2026, affirming the lower court's ruling. No written opinion was provided and the state did not file an appearance. The panel unanimously concurred, and the decision is subject to any timely motion for rehearing or certification under Florida appellate rules.