Court Filings

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Timothy Barrett, Sr.'s appeal from the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion. The court issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, concluding the appeal should be affirmed. No reasons are provided in the published entry; the panel judgment affirms the circuit court's ruling, and judges Jay, Edwards, and Kilbane concurred. The decision is subject to timely motion for rehearing or certification under the Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Justin Ryan McMillian’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motion under Florida Rule 3.850 (postconviction relief). The appellate court, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court’s ruling without published opinion or extended explanation. The court’s brief order indicates it found no reversible error in the trial court’s handling of McMillian’s 3.850 claims and left the circuit court’s disposition intact.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas resolved two related proceedings brought by John D. Ferrara challenging a trial-court denial of his first amended application for post-conviction habeas relief. The court dismissed Ferrara’s direct appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court did not issue a merits-based writ or hold an evidentiary hearing before signing the denial. The court also denied Ferrara’s petition for writ of mandamus because he failed to show entitlement to extraordinary relief — he did not establish a clear ministerial duty by the trial court or that he lacked an adequate remedy by appeal.

The Appellate Division, Third Department, denied petitioner Tyrone Winston's CPLR Article 78 challenge to a prison disciplinary finding from Auburn Correctional Facility. The court reviewed the Superintendent's determination that Winston violated a disciplinary rule and concluded the determination should be upheld. The court issued a brief order affirming the disciplinary finding and dismissed the petition, without issuing an opinion explaining its reasoning.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Reginald Lawrence Perry Jr.'s appeal from the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion by the Duval County Circuit Court. The appellate court, in a per curiam decision issued April 16, 2026, affirmed the lower court's ruling without published opinion. The panel unanimously concurred, and the opinion is not final until any timely permitted motions under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure are resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal denied Matthew Evans's petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of an action involving the Florida Department of Corrections. The decision was per curiam, with three judges concurring, and no published opinion or substantive reasoning is provided in the order. The denial leaves in place the lower court or administrative action Evans challenged; the court noted the decision is not final until any timely motion under the appellate rules is resolved.

The First District of Texas dismissed Terran Doral Green’s appeal of the trial court’s February 24, 2026 denial of his pro se pretrial habeas application as moot. Green, who had filed a pro se habeas application challenging a limitations issue while represented in the trial court, was denied in a handwritten ruling. By the time of appeal, he had been convicted and sentenced (judgment signed March 4, 2026), so he was no longer in pretrial confinement. Because the habeas relief sought was tied to pretrial release, the court concluded there was no live controversy and dismissed the appeal and any pending motions.

The Court of Appeals concluded it lacked jurisdiction over Levi Jerome Marshall, Jr.'s appeal from the trial court's dismissal of his 2024 habeas corpus petition as untimely and successive. Because the Georgia Constitution grants the Supreme Court of Georgia exclusive appellate jurisdiction in habeas corpus matters, the Court of Appeals transferred the case to the Georgia Supreme Court for disposition. The order is procedural and does not address the merits of Marshall's habeas claims.

The Tenth Court of Appeals dismissed Thomas Dione Moore's petition seeking mandamus relief because the challenged district court (the 20th District Court of Milam County) lies outside the geographic jurisdiction of the Tenth Court. The court explained it lacks writ jurisdiction to issue mandamus against a court located in a different appellate district under the cited statutory provisions, and therefore the petition cannot proceed in this court. The opinion was delivered April 9, 2026.

The Tenth Appellate District of Texas dismissed Louis Benjamin Vargas's appeal from a municipal court judge's denial of a habeas corpus petition because the court lacked jurisdiction. Vargas had pleaded no contest to a speeding complaint, paid the fine and costs, and filed his appeal in this appellate court instead of the statutorily required county court at law. The Court explained that appellate review of municipal court judgments lies in the county court at law unless the fine exceeds $100 and the county court affirms or the sole issue is the constitutionality of the statute, neither of which applied here.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Ethan Frederick Hill’s appeal from the denial of his habeas corpus petition under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.072 because his notice of appeal was untimely. Hill filed a motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal under Rule 306a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming late receipt of the trial court’s December 1, 2025 order. The court held the civil-rule extension does not apply to criminal appeals from article 11.072 denials, the applicable deadline was 30 days under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Hill’s notice was filed late, so the court lacked jurisdiction and denied the extension motion.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of inmate Nikko N. Jones’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Jones argued that a judge who accepted his 2022 guilty pleas and sentenced him lacked authority because the judge had not been formally assigned to the case. The court held Jones’s petition was procedurally defective for failing to comply with R.C. 2969.25 and substantively deficient because any improper judicial assignment would make a judgment voidable, not void, and therefore is not a cognizable basis for habeas relief while his sentence remains unexpired.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of inmate Lewis Leroy McIntyre Jr.’s habeas petition seeking immediate release. The appeals court had dismissed the petition sua sponte for noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) because McIntyre’s affidavit listing prior civil actions omitted required details for one listed case. McIntyre argued the case need not have been listed, but the Supreme Court held he voluntarily included it and therefore cannot complain under the invited-error doctrine. The dismissal was affirmed for failure to strictly comply with the statute.

The court reviewed an appeal by inmate Mourice Neal from the Richland County Common Pleas Court's dismissal of his writ of habeas corpus. The trial court had granted the warden's motion to dismiss Neal's petition, and the appellate court affirmed. The panel found Neal failed to support his assignments of error with citations to the record or legal authority as required by the appellate rules, so the court declined to consider the substantive claims and upheld the dismissal. Costs were assessed to Neal.

The Ohio Court of Appeals dismissed Jeremy Richards’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging three pending criminal cases. The court held his claims (false arrest, police and prosecutorial misconduct, due-process violations, double jeopardy, and judicial bias) are not cognizable in habeas corpus, and the petition had multiple procedural defects: failure to attach commitment papers, naming an improper respondent (a judge), and failing to provide the required inmate account certification. Because of these substantive and procedural deficiencies, the court dismissed the petition sua sponte and ordered Richards to pay costs.

The Court of Appeal granted Alonzo Devon Melson’s petition for habeas corpus and vacated his conviction for crimes arising from a 2017 gang-related shooting. The court found that two prosecution eyewitnesses gave trial testimony that was false about what they had told police after the shooting, and the prosecutor failed to correct those statements. Defense counsel at the retrial also failed to adequately prepare to impeach those witnesses. Under controlling precedent, the false testimony was material and the People did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt it did not contribute to the verdict.