Court Filings

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Joseph George Heid IV's postconviction motion. The appellate court affirmed the decision in full but noted the trial court may still consider, under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, a separate pending postconviction motion asserting newly discovered video evidence. The panel issued a per curiam order affirming the denial and left open further consideration of the distinct 3.850 claim by the postconviction court.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a criminal case involving Janet Roster. The panel held that the State presented sufficient evidence to support a trafficking offense by relying on the aggregate weight and testing of individual baggies of a controlled substance, and applying precedent that requires viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. The court cited Mosley v. State and Bell v. State to justify both the sufficiency of the tested quantities and the standard for resolving a motion to dismiss, and therefore affirmed the lower court's ruling.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Bridge Golde from a Glades County County Court decision. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam order, affirmed the lower court's decision and cited Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). All three judges concurred. The appellant proceeded pro se and the appellee did not appear. The opinion is short-form and finality is subject to the time for filing a motion for rehearing.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Demiko White from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Alachua County. After consideration, the appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 24, 2026, summarily affirming the lower court's decision. The court provided no published opinion or extended reasoning in the document and noted that the decision is not final until any timely authorized motion under Florida appellate rules is resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Demiko White from a decision of the Alachua County Circuit Court. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 24, 2026, and affirmed the lower court's judgment. No detailed opinions or reasoning are included in the published entry; the court simply announced affirmation and noted that the decision is not final until potential timely motions under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure are resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Michael Christopher Thompson's appeal from a decision of the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. The appellate panel issued a per curiam opinion on April 24, 2026, and the court affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief, provides no expanded explanation, and notes that the decision is not final until any timely authorized motion under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 is resolved.

The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a case filed by appellant Tony L. Scott against the State of Florida. The opinion is per curiam, dated April 24, 2026, and states simply 'AFFIRMED' without additional published reasoning. The panel of judges (Rowe, Nordby, and Long) concurred. The clerk notes the decision is not final until any timely, authorized motions under Florida appellate rules are resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Jimmy Ressler's appeal from a Santa Rosa County circuit court decision. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 24, 2026, and affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion contains no extended discussion of facts or legal reasoning beyond the single-word disposition, and the panel of judges (Rowe, Nordby, and Long) concurred. Counsel for the parties are noted, and the opinion states it is not final until any timely authorized postjudgment motions are resolved.

The First District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court decision in a criminal case. The appeal was brought by Stephanie Dana Reese from a judgment of the County Court for Bay County. The appellate court issued a short per curiam decision on April 24, 2026, simply stating "AFFIRMED," with three judges concurring. The opinion contains no elaboration of reasoning or factual detail beyond the affirmance and the appellate representation for both sides.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Shaheed Kabree Gardner from a decision of the Circuit Court for Alachua County. The appellate court, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's judgment. No published opinion or detailed reasoning is provided in the entry; the court simply announced affirmance and noted the decision is not final until the time for certain post-judgment motions expires.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed Bud Chatman’s appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County and, in a brief per curiam decision dated April 24, 2026, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The opinion is unsigned and states only the disposition—affirmed—with all three judges concurring. No reasoning or factual discussion is included in the published entry. The clerk’s note reminds parties that the decision is not final until any timely, authorized motion under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 is resolved.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal appeal brought by Doderick Woods-Smith against the State of Florida. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for DeSoto County. The per curiam opinion is brief and simply states “Affirmed,” with three judges concurring. No additional reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis is included in the published opinion.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by Kimberly C. Shook from a Pasco County Court decision and, after consideration, issued a per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's judgment. The appeal was submitted with the appellant appearing pro se and no counsel appearing for the appellee. The opinion is brief, notes concurrence by the three-judge panel, and affirms the county court ruling without published reasoning in this short entry.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in an appeal brought by Vincent H. Osorio against Elizabeth Osorio. The appellate court reviewed the circuit court's ruling in Pasco County and, after considering the parties' briefs and record, concluded there was no reversible error and upheld the lower court's judgment. The opinion was issued per curiam without a published written opinion, and the three-judge panel concurred. No further reasoning or detailed findings were included in the short docketed opinion.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling in a criminal matter brought by Lary Scott Morris, Jr. against the State of Florida. The opinion is per curiam, short, and provides no extended explanation; the appellate panel (Chief Judge Lucas and Judges Silberman and Smith) announced agreement with the lower court's decision and affirmed the judgment. The decision was issued April 24, 2026, and the opinion is subject to revision before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal appeal by Sarah Kynay Martinez against the State of Florida. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. The per curiam opinion, issued April 24, 2026, concluded the appellant's challenge lacked merit and therefore affirmed the judgment below. Three judges concurred and the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the appellant's conviction. The appeal challenged trial rulings related to a search and the revocation hearing, but the court relied on prior decisions holding that smell plus additional observations can support searches and that failure to object preserves nothing for appeal. Because the case involved more than the smell of cannabis and the defendant failed to contemporaneously object at the revocation hearing, the panel concluded no reversible error occurred and affirmed the lower court's decision.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of Patrick Maxwell’s request for resentencing. Maxwell sought resentencing under an earlier Fifth District decision, but before resentencing occurred the Florida Supreme Court clarified in Pedroza v. State that juvenile offenders need resentencing only if their sentence is life or a functional equivalent. The appellate court held the trial court correctly applied the new Pedroza standard and therefore properly denied resentencing. The court found no error and affirmed the lower court’s order.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a wrongful-death/negligent security appeal. The panel held there was no genuine dispute of material fact that would allow a jury to find the defendants owed or breached a legally cognizable duty to prevent the criminal act that caused the decedent’s death. The court relied on Florida summary-judgment standards and precedent distinguishing foreseeability as part of duty and proximate cause, concluding the record did not impose liability on the landowner under current law.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed Damerius Kashon Hart’s convictions and sentence for two counts of lewd and lascivious battery on a child aged 12–16. Hart challenged the trial court’s imposition of $4,025 labeled as “Cost of Extradition.” The appellate court held that extradition costs are authorized prosecution costs under Florida law (section 938.27(1)) and therefore properly imposed, and that the erroneous statutory citation on the judgment form did not invalidate the assessment. The court rejected Hart’s remaining appellate arguments without discussion.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal treated Paris Demetrius Evans’s petition for writ of certiorari as an appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c) from the trial court’s January 6, 2026 order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus. The appellate court reviewed the order and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. The per curiam opinion states only the procedural conversion to an appeal and the affirmance, without extended reasoning, and the decision was issued April 24, 2026.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Department of Revenue's action in an appeal brought by Mikesha Chantae Johnson. The court issued a short per curiam ruling simply stating AFFIRMED and cited Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315. No written opinion or substantive reasoning is provided in the document; the judgment of the lower tribunal is therefore upheld. The decision was announced April 24, 2026, and participating judges concurred. Johnson proceeded pro se and the Department of Revenue was represented by the Attorney General's office.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court’s denial of Blue Origin’s motion to compel arbitration of former employee Craig Stoker’s employment claims. The court found the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable because it was an adhesion contract presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and substantively unconscionable because it was overbroad, lacked mutuality, waived jury trial, and barred representative claims including PAGA-style claims. Because multiple defects tainted the agreement and severance would not cure the one-sided scheme, the court held the arbitration clause unenforceable and affirmed denial of the petition to compel arbitration.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of Citizens Against Marketplace Apartment/Condo Development’s petitions challenging the City of San Ramon’s approval of an infill housing project at Marketplace Center and the city’s finding that the project was categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA. Citizens argued the project conflicted with the general plan and zoning because a joint “master plan” was allegedly required and the development was not a proper horizontal mixed-use. The court found substantial evidence supported the city’s consistency findings and that CEQA’s in-fill exemption applied, and it upheld the trial court’s award of record-preparation costs to the city.

The Texas Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Tyrone Shepard for possession of a controlled substance (less than one gram) but modified the trial court judgment to correct clerical errors about plea and jury-waiver language. Shepard argued jury-charge error, improper reopening of the State's case, and denial of a speedy-trial motion. The court held the “on or about” instruction was a correct statement of law and not a comment on the evidence, that the trial court permissibly reopened the State’s case, and that the Barker factors did not show a constitutional speedy-trial violation given delays largely attributable to Shepard and minimal prejudice.

The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Mireyda and Joel Gonzalez’s suit against the City of Vidor. The Gonzalezes claimed the City was vicariously liable for a police officer’s negligent driving that led to a crash, arguing the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) waived immunity because the officer acted recklessly and failed to use his siren. The Court of Appeals held the emergency exception to the TTCA applied: the officer was responding to an emergency, his use of lights but not a siren was justified under statutory exceptions, and the record did not show conscious indifference or reckless disregard that would waive immunity. The City’s plea to the jurisdiction was properly granted.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Ronald Sutherland’s suit for want of prosecution. Sutherland had sued Thomas Dean Stewart and Phillip Chapman for falsely reporting a 1966 Ford Mustang stolen and sought sanctions and a default judgment against Stewart for discovery failures. The trial court dismissed the case after Sutherland failed to appear for trial. The appeals court held Sutherland did not challenge the dismissal itself, and interlocutory denials of sanctions or default judgments cannot be reviewed separately once a final dismissal stands, so the dismissal is dispositive.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s final order terminating a mother’s parental rights to her eight children. The appeals court reviewed the record after counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no nonfrivolous issues, independently reviewed the record, and agreed the mother’s appeal lacked merit. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the mother endangered the children through substance abuse, constructively abandoned them, and failed to complete court-ordered substance treatment, and that termination was in the children’s best interest. The appeals court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the termination order.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s final order terminating a mother’s parental rights to her child. The appellate court found clear and convincing evidence that the mother endangered the child through substance abuse and related conduct, failed to comply with a court-ordered plan, and that termination was in the child’s best interest. Because the legislature repealed one statutory predicate ground after the proceedings began, the court modified the trial court’s written order to delete the now-void finding under subsection (O). The court denied counsel’s withdrawal and required counsel to pursue further appellate remedies if appropriate.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s revocation of Austin Douglas Worley’s community supervision and three-year prison sentence. Worley, originally placed on deferred adjudication for evading arrest in 2017, faced a third motion to adjudicate alleging six violations including a new aggravated-assault offense, failures to report in writing, and unpaid fines and fees. The trial court found five violations true after testimony and evidence, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced him to three years’ confinement. The appellate court held the State met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence and that the revocation did not constitute an abuse of discretion.