Court Filings

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed Michael Ortega's appeal from a Pinellas County circuit court order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appellate court, in a brief per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No opinion text or substantive reasoning was provided in the published entry beyond the affirmance and the judges who concurred.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal appeal filed by Christopher Clayton Miller against the State of Florida. The appellate panel issued a per curiam decision, with Judges Kelly, Khouzam, and Sleet concurring, and concluded that the trial court's ruling should stand. No detailed reasoning, factual background, or citations were included in the published opinion, and the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in a criminal appeal filed by Mark A. Kalina against the State of Florida. The appeal was taken under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure rule governing appeals in criminal cases. The opinion is per curiam, brief, and concludes without published reasoning; the panel of judges concurred and the judgment of the lower court stands.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a criminal appeal by Darryl Johnson from a Pinellas County circuit court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The panel issued a short, per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. No opinion elaborating reasoning or issues was published; the decision notes concurrence by three judges and that the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The appellate court reviewed a pro se appeal by Jesse Cleveland Harrell from a DeSoto County circuit court criminal proceeding under the Florida rules for collateral review. The Second District issued a short per curiam disposition and affirmed the lower court’s decision without published opinion. The court provided no extended reasoning in the order and the panel concurred. The mandate affirms the circuit court’s judgment or order as challenged by Harrell, leaving the trial-court outcome intact.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in an appeal by Dondre R. Hale against the State of Florida. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Pinellas County circuit court before Judge Philip J. Federico. The appellate panel issued a per curiam decision—joined by Judges Northcutt, LaRose, and Rothstein-Youakim—simply stating 'Affirmed' without further published opinion and noted the opinion may be revised prior to official publication.

The court reviewed an appeal by C.H. challenging the actions of the Department of Children and Families and the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Program in a dependency matter involving children J.H. and G.B. After considering the record and arguments, the district court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The decision affirms the circuit court's handling of the dependency-related proceedings without further comment, and the panel of three judges concurred. No additional factual findings or legal analysis are included in the published entry.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Jason Funk from a Hillsborough County circuit court criminal postconviction or sentencing matter under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The court, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No published opinion or additional reasoning was provided in the order; the panel (Kelly, Morris, and Guard, JJ.) concurred and the decision is subject to revision before official publication.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a criminal matter. Appellant Bruce Cowart appealed a decision from the Circuit Court for Manatee County, represented by the public defender, with the State of Florida represented by the Attorney General. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 22, 2026, summarily affirming the lower court's ruling without published opinion and with three judges concurring. No additional reasoning or factual detail was provided in the published entry.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal postconviction appeal. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from a Hillsborough County circuit court order, and the appellate panel issued a brief per curiam opinion simply stating: Affirmed. All three judges concurred. No further explanation or published reasoning was included in the opinion as filed on April 22, 2026.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed Jermaine Antwane Brown, Jr.'s appeal from a Pinellas County circuit court criminal postconviction order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The panel, in a brief per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No extended reasoning or factual discussion is provided in this opinion; the court simply announced affirmance and noted the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of the appellant Timothy Joseph Ferguson's challenge in three criminal cases. The panel issued a short per curiam opinion, relying on precedent to hold that the defendant was not entitled to an express written explanation for the denial of a motion to downward departure from sentencing. The court cited Venter v. State to support its view that due process does not require a specific explanation for such denials and therefore found no reversible error.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the county court’s final judgment and its denial of Robert Vidal’s motion for new trial in a case brought by Barclays Bank Delaware. The appellate court held Vidal failed to preserve the claimed errors, did not provide an adequate record for appellate review, and did not show reversible error. The court relied on precedent requiring an adequate trial record to evaluate factual and legal claims on appeal and therefore found no basis to disturb the lower court’s rulings.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's revocation of Jason Brandon Mervil's probation. The court held that the evidence supporting revocation was sufficient because the hearsay presented at the probation revocation hearing was corroborated by non-hearsay evidence and an experienced officer's opinion on identification was permissible. The panel relied on prior Florida decisions establishing that hearsay may be used at revocation hearings only when supported by non-hearsay proof and that trained officers may opine about controlled substances. The judgment below is therefore affirmed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Henry Wilson’s convictions for aggravated assault with a firearm, burglary of a conveyance while armed, and resisting an officer without violence. The court held that pretrial exclusion of public statements by Governor DeSantis and the county sheriff about the right to bear arms and tough-on-crime rhetoric was not an abuse of discretion because those generalized statements were not relevant to Wilson’s subjective belief or the objective reasonableness required by Florida’s defense-of-property statute. The court did remand for the trial court to enter separate written sentences for each count to conform to its oral pronouncements.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's rulings in a criminal prosecution of Luis Enrique Juarbe. The appellate panel concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting other-act evidence under Florida's child-molestation evidence statute and related precedent, and that the trial court's handling of evidentiary and mistrial issues was within its broad discretion. The court relied on statutory language and controlling case law addressing admissibility, relevance, similarity, remoteness, and the doctrine of opening the door to support its decision to affirm.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the defendant George Walton’s criminal conviction. The court reviewed whether the evidence was legally sufficient and applied the established standard: viewing the record in the light most favorable to the State, asking whether a rational factfinder could have found the crime’s elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Citing Florida precedent, the panel concluded the State presented competent, substantial evidence to support the verdict and denied Walton’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a civil dispute between appellant Marylou Elaine Muscillo and appellee Gilles P. Cournoyer. The opinion, issued April 22, 2026, is per curiam and brief, stating only the disposition without published reasoning. The appellate court declined to reverse or remand the lower court's decision, leaving the trial court's ruling in place subject to any timely rehearing motion. No further factual or legal explanation appears in the opinion.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal order from the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court in a civil appeal brought by Joseph Johel Pineda and others against Ricky Enrique De Cespedes. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 22, 2026, and concluded the lower court's order should stand. The opinion is brief, notes the appeal number and counsel, and states the judgment as "Affirmed." No further reasoning or factual discussion is provided in the published docket entry.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a criminal postconviction appeal brought by Ira Lee Pickett. The appeal was filed under the Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure governing appeals in criminal cases from nonfinal orders or specified postconviction rulings. The panel issued a short per curiam opinion on April 22, 2026, summarily rejecting Pickett's challenge and leaving the lower court's ruling intact. No extended opinion, reasoning, or separate opinions were published with the affirmation.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a final injunction for protection against domestic violence entered by the circuit court. The appellant, proceeding pro se, claimed his lawyer had documents not presented at the hearing, but he failed to provide a trial transcript or statement of the proceedings. Because the appellate record lacked the testimony and evidence necessary to evaluate factual and legal claims, the court relied on binding precedent that an inadequate record requires affirmance and therefore affirmed the lower court's judgment.

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 issued a short per curiam decision affirming a nonfinal ruling from the Circuit Court for Brevard County in case number 2019-CA-052645. The appeal was brought by William Ivan (individually and as trustee) against Jeff Holder and Andrew Holder (and nominal parties). The appellate court, without published opinion, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No reasoning or detailed findings are included in the document beyond the affirmance and the judges' concurrence.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a case brought by Si’leshia Green as parent and natural guardian of a minor against the Flagler County School Board. The appeal arose from the circuit court in Flagler County (case 18-2023-CA-99). The opinion is per curiam, issued April 21, 2026, and provides no published reasoning beyond affirmance. The panel of Judges Lambert, Edwards, and Harris concurred. The mandate is subject to any timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court ruling in a dispute between policyholder Norma Tamburini and Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The opinion is per curiam and contains only the single-word disposition “AFFIRMED,” indicating the appellate court upheld the circuit court’s judgment. No published reasoning or opinion text appears in the document beyond the affirmation and the panel concurrence, so the court relied on the record and the circuit court’s decision without issuing additional analysis in this entry.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Gary W. Lucas, Jr.'s appeal from a Duval County circuit court criminal case. The panel issued a per curiam decision on April 21, 2026, and concluded the appeal lacked merit, affirming the judgment below. No published opinion or extended reasoning accompanied the single-line disposition; the court simply announced AFFIRMED and recorded concurrence by the three judges. The decision is subject to any timely post‑opinion motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Carl Joseph Johnson's appeal from Seminole County circuit court criminal proceedings and, in a brief per curiam decision dated April 21, 2026, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion contains no extended explanation or reasoning, and the panel (Chief Judge Jay and Judges Eisnaugle and Boatwright) issued a unanimous affirmance. The mandate is subject to timely post-judgment motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment in the criminal case of Brent Paul Venrooy v. State of Florida. The opinion is per curiam, dated April 21, 2026, and provides no published reasoning beyond the single-word disposition "AFFIRMED." The panel of judges (Lambert, Soud, Boatwright) concurred. The decision notes the case came from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County and that any timely post-opinion motions under Florida appellate rules may still be filed.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Viswanauth Somwaru's appeal from the trial court's denial of a postconviction motion under Florida Rule 3.850. After briefing and oral argument, the appellate court issued a short, per curiam decision on April 21, 2026, holding that the lower court's ruling would be affirmed. The opinion contains no extended reasoning in the published entry; it simply affirms the circuit court's disposition and notes the panel members who concurred.

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.