Court Filings

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute between appellant Richard Block and appellee Midwest One Bank. The appeal, taken from an order in Palm Beach County Circuit Court (case no. 502024CA008105XXXAMB), was argued pro se by Block; Midwest One Bank was represented by counsel. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion stating simply: Affirmed. No separate written opinion, legal analysis, or change in the lower court's judgment was provided in the published entry.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's nonfinal orders in a consolidated appeal brought by LP Glass Technologies, Inc. against Barron Development Corporation. The appellate panel, in a brief per curiam decision, concluded that the lower court's rulings should stand and did not provide extended reasoning in the published entry. The opinion affirms the challenged orders and notes the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed two consolidated nonfinal circuit court orders in a civil dispute between LP Glass Technologies, Inc. (appellant) and Barron Development Corporation (appellee). The opinion is per curiam, brief, and provides no substantive reasoning in the published entry; it simply states the appellate disposition as affirmed, with concurrence by all three judges. The decision is not final pending any timely rehearing motion. No further factual or legal detail was provided in the opinion itself.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment in a case in which Kevin Bain, representing himself, appealed a decision involving Aaron Bryan. The appeal arose from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County. The panel issued a per curiam opinion simply stating "Affirmed" without published reasoning. The court noted the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. No further factual or legal detail is provided in the opinion.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's rulings in two consolidated criminal cases brought by the State of Florida against Hector Calderon. The appeal was taken from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's disposition without published opinion; the decision remains subject to a timely motion for rehearing. No additional reasoning or factual discussion appears in the opinion.

The District Court of Appeal for Florida's Fourth District affirmed a nonfinal county court order in an appeal filed by George Lambro in a case against Eduardo Lautieri. The opinion is short: the panel issued a per curiam affirmance without published reasoning. The decision was entered on April 30, 2026, and the judgment is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. Lambro appeared pro se; appellee was represented by counsel.

The appellate court reviewed Charles F. Cheleden's appeal from final agency actions by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Community Association Management. After considering the record and briefs, the court unanimously affirmed the agency's decisions. The opinion is short and does not elaborate on legal reasoning in the published entry; it simply states the judgment affirming the agency. The decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal order from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, in a dispute between Carlos De La Paz Bernitt (appellant, proceeding pro se from Ecuador) and U.S. Bank National Association as trustee (appellee). The panel issued a short per curiam decision, simply stating 'Affirmed' and noting the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. No substantive reasoning or factual discussion appears in the published entry.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in the criminal case of Carlensky Deneville. The appeal was taken from a conviction or judgment entered in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion simply stating 'Affirmed' without published reasoning, with three judges concurring. The opinion notes it is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Bidbumpers, LLC and Christian C. Carmona from a Broward County Court decision involving Lobel Financial Corp. The appellate court, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's judgment. No extended opinion, reasoning, or change to the trial court's disposition was published; the mandate is subject to possible change if a timely motion for rehearing is filed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order denying Bachir Osias's motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Osias, proceeding pro se, appealed the denial of his postconviction relief motion filed in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam disposition, concluding there was no reversible error in the denial and therefore affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion was unanimous and notes it is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal circuit-court order in a civil dispute between A&J Capital Inc. (appellant) and HC CBA, LLC (appellee). The opinion is per curiam, issued April 30, 2026, and provides no extended reasoning in the published entry. The appellate panel unanimously affirmed the lower court's nonfinal order, leaving any further relief dependent on timely post-opinion motions. The opinion is not final until resolution of any timely motion for rehearing.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a criminal case in which James William Chaney appealed his conviction or sentence. The appeal arose from the Circuit Court for Lake County before Judge Brian J. Welke. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 30, 2026, simply stating 'AFFIRMED' with all judges concurring, and provided no published opinion or extended reasoning in the decision document provided.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed multiple consolidated appeals in which the State challenged rulings involving defendant Jadarius Brown. After consideration, the court issued a per curiam opinion on April 30, 2026, affirming the lower court's decision. The opinion is brief: it affirms the judgment of the trial court without published opinion or extended explanation, and the three-judge panel concurred. The mandate is subject to any timely rehearing motions under Florida appellate rules.

The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence of Cary Anthony Stayner for the murders of Carole Sund, her daughters’ friend Silvina Pelosso, and 15-year-old Juli Sund, and related kidnapping. After a jury convicted Stayner of three counts of murder and one count of kidnapping, found multiple special circumstance allegations true, found him sane, and the jury fixed penalty at death, the trial court denied motions for new trial and sentence modification. The high court reviewed guilt, sanity, and penalty-phase claims and concluded the record did not establish reversible error, affirming the judgment in full.

The California Supreme Court held that trial courts may order pretrial detention of noncapital defendants only in the specific circumstances described by article I, section 12 (subdivisions (b) and (c)) of the California Constitution. Where detention is not authorized under section 12, a court may condition release on monetary bail only after an individualized assessment and must set bail in an amount that is reasonable and generally attainable given the defendant’s circumstances. The decision reconciles section 12 with article I, section 28(f)(3), reaffirming that public and victim safety remain primary considerations but do not expand the categories of offenses subject to detention.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed Deair R. Wray’s convictions for murder, felonious assault, and improperly discharging a firearm after a jury trial in Summit County. The court reviewed Wray’s four assignments of error — sufficiency of the evidence, manifest weight, jury-question instruction, and speedy-trial claim — and found no reversible error. The court held the testimony of cooperating witnesses, GPS ankle-monitor data, victim and neighbor testimony, and other evidence permitted the jury to find Wray was the shooter. The court found counsel waived the speedy-trial claim and that credibility disputes did not merit reversal.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Summit County Common Pleas Court's judgment against Dezmond Gainer. Gainer pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea deal to trafficking in cocaine with forfeiture specifications and possession of a fentanyl-related compound; other charges were dismissed. After sentencing to 5 to 7.5 years and forfeiture orders, Gainer obtained leave for a delayed appeal. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no nonfrivolous issues exist and moved to withdraw; Gainer indicated he prefers to raise an ineffective-assistance claim in post-conviction proceedings. The appellate court independently reviewed the record, found no meritorious direct-appeal issues, granted counsel's motion, and affirmed.

The court affirmed Thurmell Maley’s conviction for public indecency after a bench trial where an officer observed her with her pants and underwear pulled down, urinating at a busy bus stop. The officer’s testimony and body-worn camera showed her exposed buttocks in an area with heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic, satisfying the statute’s requirement that the conduct was likely to be viewed by and affront others. Because the trial court’s journal entry mistakenly listed the offense as a third-degree misdemeanor, the case is remanded for a clerical correction to reflect a fourth-degree misdemeanor conviction.

The Ohio First District Court of Appeals affirmed Demarius Jester’s conviction for resisting arrest (R.C. 2921.33(A)). The municipal court struck Jester’s motion to suppress as untimely; the appellate court held that striking the motion did not constitute an abuse of discretion because the motion was filed after the Crim.R. 12(D) deadline and the State’s late disclosure of additional body-worn camera footage occurred after the motion was filed. The court also upheld admission of an officer’s testimony about computer-generated warrant information as non-hearsay evidence of the officer’s belief, and found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

The court affirmed the municipal-court judgments dismissing misdemeanor charges against Darryl Brown because his statutory right to a speedy trial was violated. Brown was arrested November 8, 2024; discovery problems (a missing 9-1-1 call) and the State’s delayed response led to multiple continuances and a motion to compel. The trial court found the State caused significant delay, sanctioned the State, and ultimately dismissed the complaints after calculating that more than 90 days had run. The appellate court held the continuances necessitated by the State’s discovery failures were chargeable to the State and affirmed.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgments against Samantha Huff. Huff had pleaded guilty in three consolidated Richland County cases (drug possession, failure to comply with police, and OVI) and later admitted violations of community control after pleading guilty to a first-degree heroin possession charge. She argued her plea was involuntary because she had professed innocence and the court failed to perform an enhanced inquiry for an Alford plea, and that the probation violation was unsupported. The appellate court found the record showed a knowing, voluntary plea with a factual basis and sufficient evidence to revoke community control, so it affirmed.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio’s orders adopting an independent auditor’s recommendations about the Power-Purchase-Agreement (PPA) Rider for AEP Ohio for 2018–2019. OCC and OMAEG argued the commission erred in finding the PPA Rider costs prudent, violated due process by denying a subpoena for a commission staff member, and applied the wrong standard for auditor independence. The Court held the commission reasonably credited evidence that a must-run strategy for OVEC coal units was prudent when chosen, that denial of the subpoena did not prejudice the parties because other witnesses covered the issues, and that the commission properly found no undue influence on the auditor.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims for specific performance, fraud, and tortious interference and denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motions. The court found that the seller (Gholis) showed it was ready, willing, and able to close by producing a title policy and that the buyer (Scott Randolph, LLC) defaulted by failing to appear at the time-of-the-essence closing, so Gholis may retain the down payment. The court also found Bushwack and Stellberger entitled to dismissal of the fraud and interference claims because key events occurred after the plaintiff sought to terminate the contract.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of Rosario's wrongful-death, fraud, and civil-conspiracy claims against the Town and Village of Mount Kisco. The plaintiff alleged the municipality failed to enforce housing regulations after her adult son died in a basement fire in an illegally converted apartment. The court held the complaint did not plead a special relationship between the municipality and decedent, did not identify a private right of action under the cited statutes, and failed to allege facts showing voluntary assumption of duty, affirmative control, justifiable reliance, or municipal participation in fraud or a conspiracy.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to Lakeview Auto Sales and Service, Inc., and to Herold Motor Cars, Inc. and John C. Herold, and denying RJK Auto Brokers' cross-motion. RJK had purchased nine vehicles from Dream Carz, which never obtained title; RJK then paid Herold Motor to obtain title to eight sold vehicles. The court held the moving defendants showed they had no contract or fraudulent conduct with RJK and that Dream Carz was not an entrustee or a merchant able to pass good title. RJK failed to raise triable issues of fact to avoid dismissal.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's personal-injury claims against homeowner Kim Eichle and certain claims against third-party defendant Joseph Russo. The plaintiff alleged the infant was injured after being punched outside a New Year's Eve party at Eichle's home and asserted causes of action under New York's Dram Shop statutes and premises liability. The court held Eichle showed she neither served visibly intoxicated guests nor furnished alcohol to minors, and that the infant could not identify whether an icy sidewalk caused his fall, so the plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of fact.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Kings County Supreme Court judgment adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender after he pleaded guilty to second-degree criminal possession of a weapon and imposing sentence. The defendant argued that the youthful-offender adjudication violated his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights, but the appellate court found those constitutional claims unpreserved for review and declined to decide them in the interest of justice. Consequently, the lower court's judgment was affirmed without addressing the merits of the constitutional challenges.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed defendant Jaquan Oden’s conviction for disorderly conduct under Penal Law § 240.20(3) after a jury trial. Oden was acquitted of a separate disorderly conduct count under § 240.20(6) that alleged failure to disperse. The court rejected arguments that the conviction was legally insufficient or against the weight of the evidence because the disputed dispersal order was an element only of the acquitted charge, not the conviction. The court also found defense counsel effective and upheld the denial of a mistrial, concluding the prosecutor’s improper remark was cured by immediate instructions to the jury.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a County Court order designating Daniel Morrison a level three sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Morrison, convicted after jury trial of first‑degree sexual abuse and two counts of second‑degree murder, argued for a lower risk level based on mitigating factors. The court held the argument was unpreserved because he did not request a downward departure at the SORA hearing, and in any event he failed to meet the legal standard for a downward departure from the presumptive level three classification.