Court Filings

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's judgment in the criminal case of Terrelle A. Tullis. The appeal was taken pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The court concluded that a life sentence is clear and definite in meaning and upheld the sentencing outcome, relying on Ratliff v. State to support that the Legislature intends a life sentence to keep a defendant in prison for the remainder of life.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in the criminal case of Lace Melitta Heflin. The appeal was considered under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The court relied on Ratliff v. State to conclude that a statutory life sentence is sufficiently definite and means the defendant is intended to remain in prison for the rest of her life, so no error warranted reversal.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in appellant Edgar E. Oliver's appeal from a Collier County circuit court order. The panel, writing per curiam, held that a statutory sentence of life imprisonment is intended by the Legislature to keep a defendant in prison for the remainder of his life, citing Ratliff v. State. No further factual discussion or modification of the sentence was provided; the appeal was disposed of by a short opinion affirming the lower court.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ decision that sufficient evidence supported a juvenile delinquency adjudication for rape. A 14-year-old (Paul) was adjudicated for one count of rape for engaging in anal intercourse with a 15-year-old resident (Charles) at a youth home. Witness testimony described Paul holding Charles by the waist and thrusting while Charles said he did not want to comply and tried to get Paul to stop. The court applied the same sufficiency standard used in adult criminal cases and concluded a rational factfinder could find Paul used force to compel submission.

The appellate court reviewed Rhonda Gail Tomlinson’s appeal from a Hillsborough County circuit court judgment involving Jeff Allen Tomlinson and related business entities. The Second District issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court’s ruling. The opinion is brief and contains no published reasoning; the panel simply affirmed the judgment below and noted concurrence by the three judges. No further factual findings, legal analysis, or modification of the trial court’s decision are included in the opinion.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a case where Irma Cristal Perdomo appealed a judgment involving Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as trustee. The appeal was taken from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County and was decided without published opinion beyond the single-word disposition. The panel issued a per curiam order affirming the circuit court's judgment with three judges concurring. No extended reasoning or detailed facts were provided in the appellate entry.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's ruling in an appeal brought by Lary Scott Morris against the State of Florida. The appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision—without published opinion—concluding that the trial court's decision was correct and required no change. All three judges concurred, and the opinion is subject to revision before official publication. No additional reasoning or factual background was provided in the court's short order.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's summary denial of a postconviction motion by Angel Gabriel Mejia. Mejia argued that a single sentence in his pro se 3.850 motion raised an involuntary-plea claim based on counsel's alleged failure to advise him about a 25-year mandatory minimum. The appellate court held that the motion did not fairly present that distinct claim and, in any event, the plea colloquy and corrected plea form conclusively refuted the allegation because Mejia was expressly advised of the mandatory minimums and acknowledged understanding them in open court.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed Craig Edward Leeks' convictions and sentences for second-degree murder and improper exhibition of a firearm. Leeks argued the trial court erred by not entering a written competency order and by not conducting a full competency hearing. The appellate court found the trial judge made adequate oral findings of competency, relied on a prior psychological evaluation, repeatedly questioned Leeks during the proceedings, and observed no lapse in competency. Because Leeks did not raise the omission below and has not shown fundamental error, the failure to reduce the competency finding to a written order did not require reversal.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed Kyle Kemp's appeal from the Pinellas County Circuit Court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). After consideration, the panel issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. The opinion is concise, lists the judges who concurred, and notes it may be revised before official publication. No reasoning or factual discussion is included in the published entry beyond the affirmance.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by Eagles Nest Development Co., Inc. and Helicopter Structural & Maintenance, Inc. from a Pasco County circuit-court decision. After considering the record and briefs, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision. The per curiam opinion gives no extended discussion of legal reasoning; the judgment of the trial court therefore stands as entered. All three judges concurred.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in the criminal matter of Scott Warren Cullen v. State of Florida. The appeal challenged an order from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County, but the appellate court, in a per curiam decision, unanimously affirmed the judgment below. No extended opinion or separate written reasoning was provided in the published entry; the court's brief ruling concludes the appeal lacks merit and upholds the trial-court outcome.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a dispute between BISK Education, Inc. (appellant) and FSOI, LLC (appellee). The appeal was taken from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County before Judge Helene L. Daniel. The appellate panel issued a per curiam decision on May 1, 2026, concluding that the lower court's ruling should stand. No extended reasoning or factual details are provided in the published entry beyond the affirmation and the judges' concurrence.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s sentencing of Zachary Boyce. The court held that the 2023 amendment to RCW 9.94A.525, which generally prevents counting most juvenile felony adjudications in an offender score, does not apply retroactively because the legislature did not clearly express that intent. Under Washington law and the savings clause (RCW 10.01.040) and RCW 9.94A.345, defendants must be sentenced according to the law in effect when the offense was committed unless the legislature expressly provides otherwise. Because no clear retroactivity language appeared in the amendment, Boyce’s juvenile adjudications were properly counted.

The Washington Supreme Court answered a certified question from a federal district court about whether RCW 70.170.060(8)(a) — the charity care notice provision — applies to a debt collection agency collecting hospital debt. The court held yes: collection agencies collecting hospital debt must provide notice of charity care under the plain language and policy of the charity care act, and an assignee of hospital debt takes on notice obligations tied to that debt. The court further explained that failure to provide notice can support a non-per-se Consumer Protection Act claim based on violation of the act’s public-policy goals.

The Washington Supreme Court answered certified questions from a federal case about whether a home equity line of credit (HELOC) is a negotiable instrument and whether an alleged beneficiary can be the “holder” of such a HELOC for purposes of initiating a nonjudicial trustee’s sale under the deed of trust act (DTA). The majority held that HELOCs of this revolving type are nonnegotiable and that the DTA’s requirement that the beneficiary be the “holder” refers to the holder of a negotiable instrument under the Uniform Commercial Code, so RRA could not truthfully declare it was the holder and thus could not proceed nonjudicially. The court noted judicial remedies remain available.

The Washington Supreme Court held that child welfare records in the custody of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) are generally privileged under RCW 74.04.060(1)(a), but an exception in that statute permits disclosure when the records are needed in a judicial proceeding directly concerned with administration of the foster care program. The court also held RCW 13.50.100 does not bar disclosure because plaintiffs are entitled to records that “pertain” to them. The trial courts’ orders compelling production of redacted records under protective orders were affirmed; fee requests were denied.

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s dismissal of Tim Eyman’s recall petition against Secretary of State Steve Hobbs. Eyman argued Hobbs failed to transmit a proposed referendum measure as required by statute, amounting to misfeasance and a violation of his oath. The Court held the petition was legally insufficient because the challenged statute was enacted with a valid emergency clause, making the law exempt from referendum and negating any mandatory duty the secretary had to process that referendum. The Court affirmed without reaching factual sufficiency.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed Flint Duerfeldt’s convictions for child molestation, aggravated sexual battery, and aggravated child molestation and upheld the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial. Duerfeldt argued the admission of a forensic interviewer’s testimony that the victim’s disclosure was consistent with other sexually abused children violated the amended expert-evidence rule and that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting. The court found the testimony was properly admissible under OCGA § 24-7-702, did not impermissibly vouch for credibility, and counsel’s failure to object was not deficient because an objection would have been futile.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Edward Ball’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized from his home after a jury convicted him of multiple drug and firearm offenses. The court held the search warrant was supported by probable cause based on controlled buys, surveillance tying Ball and a vehicle registered to him to drug transactions, and the officer’s training and experience; it also found no reversible error in alleged reliance on evidence outside the affidavit. Challenges that the warrant was overbroad or lacked particularity failed because Ball did not show any harm or preserve a detailed argument below.

The Ohio Court of Appeals (Eighth District) affirmed David Spivey’s convictions for two counts of murder and related felonious-assault and firearm specifications arising from the July 30, 2020 killings of brothers Dominique and Delvont’e King. After a second jury trial, Spivey was convicted and sentenced to 15 years to life plus six years of consecutive firearm time (parole eligibility after 21 years). On appeal he challenged multiple evidentiary rulings, the weight of the evidence, juror bias, and claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court rejected each argument, finding no plain error or prejudice and concluding counsel’s performance was not deficient.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed De’Ane Peterson’s convictions and 120-month aggregate prison sentence after he pleaded guilty in three Cuyahoga County cases (2023, 2024, 2025). The court found the trial judge complied with Crim.R. 11 and that Peterson’s guilty pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The court rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel because Peterson did not show his plea was caused by counsel’s conduct. The court also found the record supported the trial court’s consecutive-sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

The Ohio Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County affirmed the trial court’s denial of Airik Kahlead Jordan’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Jordan had pleaded guilty as part of a plea agreement to involuntary manslaughter, kidnapping, and related firearm and weapon counts with an agreed sentence range; he later filed a pro se motion saying he pleaded out of fear and maintained his innocence. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Jordan’s plea colloquy was thorough, he knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty, and his motion amounted to a mere change of heart unsupported by new evidence.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Nathan Jones’s convictions and related firearm specifications following a bench trial. Jones was convicted of multiple sexual and related offenses after a victim testified he abducted and assaulted her at gunpoint, and DNA and other evidence linked him to the crimes. Jones argued the firearm specifications tied to three sexual-offense counts lacked sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence because the gun was only mentioned at the victim’s home and not at the later assault location. The court found reasonable inferences supported the specifications and upheld the convictions.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed William Greene’s convictions after a jury found him guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition and two counts of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles. Greene challenged admission of forensic interview statements, sufficiency of evidence, and manifest weight of the evidence. The court held the forensic interview testimony was admissible under the medical-diagnosis exception and not barred by the confrontation rule because the children testified. The court found ample evidence that Greene engaged in masturbatory conduct and showed pornography in shared living areas while the victims were minors, supporting the convictions and sentence of 36 months.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed Kevin Burge’s convictions, sentence, and the trial court’s denial of his post-sentence motion to withdraw guilty pleas. Burge pleaded guilty to 39 counts from a 63-count indictment after a thorough plea colloquy that the court found complied with Criminal Rule 11. The court rejected claims of ineffective assistance, involuntary plea, improper consecutive sentencing, and that a hearing was required on his post-sentence motion. The appellate court concluded the record showed Burge understood the plea consequences, the trial court made the required sentencing findings, and no manifest injustice was shown.

The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Raliegh Abraham’s untimely motion for a new trial and remanded the case for the trial court to consider Abraham’s pending motion for leave. Abraham had been convicted after a bench trial and sentenced; his direct appeal and application to reopen were denied. He filed a motion for leave and, on the same day, filed an untimely motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Because he did not obtain leave before filing the untimely motion as required by Crim.R. 33(B), the appellate court affirmed the denial and instructed the trial court to rule on the motion for leave.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s confirmation of an arbitration award and the entry of a final decree of divorce. The parties had agreed in a signed Cooperative Participation Agreement to mediate and, if necessary, proceed to binding arbitration. After arbitration produced an award dividing assets and awarding fees, appellee Shechter filed an application to confirm the award under R.C. 2711.09. The court held that the domestic relations court had jurisdiction to confirm the award and enter judgment under R.C. 2711.12 because the statutory procedures for confirmation, vacatur, or modification under Chapter 2711 control, and Dubick failed to timely move to vacate or modify the award.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Lyndhurst Municipal Court’s dismissal with prejudice of Stedson McIntyre’s small-claims suit against Landscape Management & Design, Inc. McIntyre claimed the company’s snowplow damaged five driveway lights and introduced a video. The magistrate found the video showed the plow stayed on the driveway and that the missing lights were obscured by displaced snow, not destroyed by the driver. The appellate court held there was competent, credible evidence to support the trial court’s finding of no breach of duty and affirmed under the manifest-weight standard.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Schuler Painting, Inc. and the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, concluding that plaintiff Robert Leghart was an independent contractor, not an employee, when he was injured. Leghart sought workers’ compensation after a June 29, 2022 scaffolding fall; the Bureau denied benefits and the trial court granted summary judgment to defendants. The appellate court found the undisputed facts — lack of payroll or onboarding paperwork, payment by invoice and Form 1099, short-term work arrangement, and medical records describing him as self-employed — supported the independent-contractor finding and no genuine factual dispute existed.