Court Filings

The State of Florida appealed a county court decision concerning defendant Stephen Bryce Balsinger. The District Court of Appeal, Second District, reviewed the appeal and unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion is per curiam (unsigned) and provides no additional reasoning in the published entry. The panel—Chief Judge Lucas and Judges Sleet and Rothstein-Youakim—concurred. The decision is subject to possible revision before official publication.

The district court reviewed an appeal by Louis Serball from a Pasco County circuit court decision. After considering the record, the appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. No opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published beyond the simple affirmation, and the appellee did not file an appearance in the appeal. The mandate affirms the trial court's ruling, leaving the circuit court's judgment intact.

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 Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a pro se appeal by Jenouch Ivory Pasco from a Pinellas County circuit court order. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's judgment. No published opinion or extended reasoning was provided in the document; the three-judge panel simply announced affirmation and noted the opinion may be revised before official publication.

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 Court of Appeal affirmed appellant Dylan James Hardy’s convictions and eight-year split sentence following guilty pleas to multiple firearm offenses. Hardy mounted facial Second Amendment challenges to California statutes banning assault-weapon activity, possession of a short-barreled shotgun, possession of a silencer, large-capacity magazine activity, and unlawful handgun transfer without a licensed dealer. The court rejected those challenges, holding short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and large-capacity magazines are not arms protected by the Second Amendment and that the assault-weapon and transfer regulations do not meaningfully burden the core right to keep and bear arms. The judgment was affirmed and certified for publication.

The First District Court of Texas affirmed William Ordonezhernandez’s conviction and twenty-year sentence for burglary of a habitation with intent to commit another felony. Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw with an Anders brief concluding the appeal is frivolous and identifying no reversible error. The court independently reviewed the entire record, considered the appellant’s pro se filing, found no arguable grounds for appeal, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court judgment. The court instructed counsel to notify the appellant of the result and his right to seek discretionary review.

The Court of Appeals affirmed a ten-year sentence imposed on Gracie Ann Mata after she pleaded guilty to third-degree felony DWI with two prior DWI convictions. The defendant argued the sentence was grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court held the claim was forfeited because the defendant failed to raise the proportionality challenge in the trial court, leaving the appellate record insufficient for the fact-intensive proportionality review required by precedent. Because the sentence was within the statutory range and the claim was unpreserved, the court affirmed.

The First District of Texas affirmed Christian Avery Franklyn’s conviction for second-degree sexual assault. The court reviewed whether the trial judge abused discretion by admitting two of Franklyn’s remote prior misdemeanor convictions for impeachment while excluding the complainant’s similar remote conviction. The court assumed error in the evidentiary rulings but found any error harmless because the record — including conflicting testimony about intoxication, forensic DNA evidence, discrepancies in witnesses’ accounts, and other credibility-damaging facts — provided fair assurance the rulings did not influence the jury’s verdict.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Armando Jesus Pedraza’s conviction and thirty-year sentence for assault on a family member by impeding breathing. Pedraza argued ineffective assistance of counsel at punishment because his lawyer failed to object to the complainant’s testimony about a news article and incorrectly advised him he could both testify and invoke the Fifth Amendment. The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance, assumed arguendo some attorney errors but found Pedraza did not prove prejudice—there was not a reasonable probability the sentence would have been more lenient absent the alleged errors given his extensive criminal history and the aggravating evidence presented.