Court Filings

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Colbert Cherubin from a Polk County circuit court decision and, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion contains no extended discussion, reasoning, or explanation beyond the court's unanimous decision to affirm. The panel consisted of Judges Smith, Brownlee, and Kamoutsas, and counsel for both sides are noted. The decision was entered April 21, 2026, and is subject to the normal deadline for a motion for rehearing.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed a criminal appeal by Aron Rodriguez-Villasana from the Polk County circuit court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The court issued a per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, affirming the lower court's judgment. No separate written opinion or explanation of reasoning is provided in the published entry; the panel of three judges concurred. The decision becomes final when the time to file a motion for rehearing expires or any filed rehearing motion is resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the trial court's judgment in a case where T.M., the father of two minor children, appealed the Department of Children and Families. The appeal arose from proceedings in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County. The appellate panel (Rowe, Ray, and Long, JJ.) unanimously concurred and affirmed the lower court's decision without published opinion. The mandate is subject to any timely motions authorized by Florida appellate rules.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed Wesley Bunsee's appeal from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County and issued a per curiam decision on April 21, 2026. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment without published opinion. The panel (Roberts, Ray, and Treadwell, JJ.) concurred, and the opinion notes that the judgment is not final until any timely post-judgment appellate motions are resolved. Counsel for both parties are listed in the record.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Wesley Bunsee from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The appellate court issued a short, per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, concluding simply: AFFIRMED. No opinion explanation or discussion of the issues appears in the published entry; the judgment of the lower court therefore stands. The panel consisted of Judges Roberts, Ray, and Treadwell, and counsel for the parties are noted in the filing.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed Robert D. Allen's appeal from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County. After considering the record, the appellate court issued a per curiam decision on April 21, 2026, affirming the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief: it announces affirmation without published opinion or extended explanation, and the three-judge panel concurred. The decision noted that it is not final until any timely authorized post-judgment appellate motions are resolved.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Terry L. Young's appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County and issued a per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026. The court affirmed the lower court's decision. The short opinion contains only the disposition (affirmed), notes that the opinion is not final until the rehearing period expires, and records that Young appeared pro se while the State did not file a responding appearance.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a civil case between borrower Peter A. Liggatt (appellant) and Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (appellee). The appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision, noting the appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County and concluding that the lower court's ruling should stand. No extended opinion or reasoning was published in the document; the court simply entered judgment affirming the lower tribunal's decision and the three judges concurred.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed a County Court judgment in a criminal/procedural matter. The appeal was filed by Kendrick Tyron Perry, Sr., pro se, from a decision of the County Court for Lee County (Judge Devin S. George). The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, concluding the lower-court judgment should stand. No detailed reasoning, facts, or issues are provided in the published entry beyond the affirmance and the court of appeal judges concurring.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Justus Pierce's appeal from a Lee County circuit court criminal matter and affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion is per curiam, brief, and provides no extended reasoning in the published text. The panel (Traver, C.J., White and Gannam, JJ.) voted to affirm the judgment below. The decision was issued April 21, 2026, and counsel for both parties are identified in the filing.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Jamal T. Jackson’s appeal from the circuit court in Orange County and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The opinion is per curiam, brief, and provides no published reasoning beyond affirmance. The appeal was taken pursuant to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and the panel affirmed the judgment below. The court noted the usual rehearing period and that the decision is not final until that period expires and any timely rehearing is resolved.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Edward and Roberta Kemp from a Lee County circuit court decision involving Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, simply stating the judgment was affirmed. No written opinion with reasoning was provided in the document; the court's summary disposition affirms the lower court's ruling without published explanation. The panel of Judges Stargel, Gannam, and Pratt concurred.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the trial court's decision in the criminal case of Casey Lynn Hennings. The appeal arose from proceedings in the Circuit Court for Orange County. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion, concluding there was no reversible error warranting relief. No separate written opinion or reasoning was published; the court affirmed the lower court's ruling and the panel members concurred.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Antwan D. Johnson's appeal from a Polk County circuit court decision and, in a short per curiam order, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief, contains no published reasoning, and the panel of judges concurred. The decision was issued April 21, 2026, and notes that it is not final until the time to file a motion for rehearing expires and any timely motion is resolved.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed Jerry Ray Walker's appeal from a Bay County circuit court decision. After consideration, the panel issued a per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's ruling. No opinion elaborating reasons was published; the judgment of the circuit court stands. The decision was entered April 21, 2026, and the court noted that the mandate is not final until resolution of any timely post-judgment motions under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed a criminal appeal by appellant Aaroney Okevious Reed from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, and affirmed the lower court's judgment. No published opinion explaining the court's reasoning appears in the document; the court simply announced its disposition and noted concurrence by the three judges. The decision is subject to any timely post-judgment motions permitted by Florida appellate rules.

The First District Court of Appeal issued a one-sentence per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment involving appellant Davion Hadden and the State of Florida. The appeal came from the Circuit Court for Leon County, before Judge Stephen Everett. No opinion explaining the court's reasoning or the issues on appeal appears in the document; the court simply affirmed the judgment and noted concurrence by the three judges. The decision is subject to timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Sixth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the conviction of Justin Clayton Goldthrite for retaliation after reviewing the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial. Goldthrite argued the State failed to comply with two Texas criminal procedure statutes governing discovery and evidence handling (Articles 38.371 and 39.14). The court applied the same legal standard and analysis it used in a companion appeal and concluded the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial, so the judgment was affirmed.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of Texas affirmed Justin Clayton Goldthrite’s conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after the trial court denied his motion for new trial. Goldthrite argued the State failed to disclose incident reports under Texas discovery statutes and that those reports affected the voluntariness of his guilty plea and his ability to use relationship evidence. The court applied Texas precedent holding a guilty plea is voluntary if the defendant had sufficient awareness of circumstances and found Goldthrite was aware of the incidents and had questioned the complaining witness, so no error was shown.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the King County Assessor in a class action brought by the Washington Hospitality Association (WHA). WHA sought property tax relief under RCW 84.70.010(1), arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic qualified as a “natural disaster” that reduced hotel property values. The court held that “natural disaster” in the statute refers to a physically destructive event originating in the earth, atmosphere, or planet (e.g., flood, earthquake, eruption), and does not encompass a pandemic or disease-related economic losses. Because WHA’s properties suffered no physical damage, relief was unavailable.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Samuel Leon Dugan’s convictions and life-without-parole sentence under Washington’s Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA). Dugan had been convicted after a bench trial of first-degree promoting prostitution (with domestic violence findings), unlawful possession of a firearm, third-degree assault, and harassment. The trial court found two prior qualifying convictions and imposed mandatory LWOP. The court rejected Dugan’s challenges that the POAA is cruel or discriminatorily applied, and rejected his Sixth Amendment claim that a jury should have decided the timing of prior convictions, relying on state precedent allowing judicial factfinding of prior convictions.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Matthew Pajestka’s conviction for operating a vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration. After two prior remands and appointment of a visiting judge, Pajestka sought a continuance shortly before a November 21, 2024 jury trial because his defense expert was unavailable; the municipal court denied the requests and proceeded. The appellate court held that denial of the continuance was not an abuse of discretion, declined to review ineffective-assistance claims raised on direct appeal because the same firm represented him at trial and on appeal, and found the breath-test evidence sufficient and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed Todd A. Dunlap’s convictions for multiple sexual offenses based on abuse of his niece between about ages 12–14. Dunlap waived a jury; the trial court found him guilty on eight counts and sentenced him to consecutive terms on rape counts, finding him a sexual predator. On appeal he raised ten assignments of error challenging sufficiency and weight of evidence, pre-indictment delay, destroyed evidence, other-acts evidence, indictment specificity, chain of custody, cumulative error, and ineffective assistance. The appellate court found the evidence credible, no actual prejudice from delay or destroyed items, no bad-faith destruction, proper handling of other-acts and chain-of-custody issues, and no ineffective assistance.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Trumbull County Common Pleas Court’s sentence of an aggregate 7-to-10½ year prison term for David Lucero, who pleaded guilty to ten second-degree felony counts involving creation and distribution of sexual material depicting minors. The appellate court reviewed Lucero’s claim that the trial court failed to properly consider sentencing statutes and alternatives to prison but found the trial court expressly stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and the imposed sentences fall within the statutory range. Because the record shows consideration of the required factors, the court found no reversible error and affirmed.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Clermont County Domestic Relations Court's final divorce decree between Kenyata (Wife) and Chris Packer (Husband). The appellate court upheld the trial court's $480,000 valuation of Husband's 75% interest in his company Rod-Techs, finding the valuation supported by competent, credible evidence from experts and rejecting Husband's challenges under the rules for expert testimony. The court also upheld the property equalization payment of about $80,000 to Wife and the spousal support award of $1,520 per month for 106 months, finding the trial court appropriately considered statutory factors.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's denial of Mother's Civ.R. 60(B) motion seeking relief from the adjudication that one child was abused and three were dependent and the related dispositional orders. Mother argued she lacked counsel at critical stages, counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain discovery, the juvenile court failed to comply with procedural safeguards for stipulations, WCCS committed fraud by labeling kinship placements as "foster children" on clothing vouchers, and no safety plan was offered. The appellate court held these claims either were not operative facts warranting an evidentiary hearing, were time-barred or barred by res judicata, and did not satisfy the three-part Civ.R. 60(B) test.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's denial of Mother's petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking return of four children removed to protective custody. The children were adjudicated in juvenile court after a May 31, 2023 shelter-care removal; Mother later revoked consent to a proposed legal custody transfer and pursued various postjudgment motions and appeals. The juvenile court denied habeas relief because Mother had an adequate remedy at law (a motion for further disposition and appeals) and the lack of notice of the initial shelter-care hearing did not strip the juvenile court of jurisdiction. The appellate court found no reversible error.

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision terminating parental rights and granting permanent custody of three children to the Erie County Department of Job & Family Services. The children were removed after incidents involving domestic violence, unsafe home conditions, and Mother’s criminal charges; Father had minimal contact. The court held the juvenile court properly found the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, that statutory factors (including failure to remedy conditions, lack of commitment, and a qualifying conviction) were met by clear and convincing evidence, and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court's judgment denying relief to Robert Phelps. Phelps had pleaded guilty in 2020 and was sentenced to 15 years under a plea agreement. He later sought recusal of the trial judge; an entry labeled as denying judicial release appeared in filings but was not in the record. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous. The appellate court found no arguable appealable error, held it lacked authority to review recusal under R.C. 2701.03, granted counsel's motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court judgment.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed Kelsey Amos’s conviction for Theft (R.C. 2913.02(A)(1)) after a bench trial. The court reviewed sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges to evidence that Amos aided or abetted a co-defendant (K.B.) who took the victim’s e-bike. The court concluded the record supports a finding that Amos spoke with K.B., positioned the vehicle next to the bike, followed him after the bike was taken, and associated with K.B. before and after the offense; the trial court reasonably credited the prosecution’s theory of complicity and did not err in finding Amos guilty.