Court Filings

The Second District Court of Appeal of Florida reviewed an appeal by Rashad J. Taylor from a Hillsborough County circuit court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appellate court issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The opinion is brief, gives no published reasoning beyond the affirmation, and notes that the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in an appeal by Gary Swain. Swain, appearing pro se, sought review under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 29, 2026, concluding that the circuit court's ruling should be upheld. No published opinion or extended reasoning was provided in the document; the panel of judges concurred and the judgment was affirmed.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirmed a lower-court decision in a criminal matter. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the County Court for Pinellas County. The per curiam opinion states simply: Affirmed. Three judges concurred. No further reasoning, facts, or citation details are provided in the document.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a pro se appeal by Darrell Anthony Patterson, Jr., from a Pinellas County circuit court order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 29, 2026, affirming the lower court's decision. No published opinion or extended explanation of reasoning appears in the document; the panel simply affirmed the judgment of the circuit court and the decision is subject to revision before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a pro se criminal appeal by John H. Paschal. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from a Pinellas County circuit court order. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision, with three judges concurring, and affirmed the lower court's ruling without published opinion or extended reasoning. The judgment resolves the appeal against Paschal and leaves the circuit court's order intact.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a pro se criminal appeal by Kenneth E. Mills from the circuit court in Pinellas County under the rule for appeals in criminal cases. After considering the record, the panel issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief, provides no published reasoning, and notes it may be revised before official publication. The judges concurred and the decision was entered on April 29, 2026.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in an appeal brought by Charles E. Lovett, Jr. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) and reviewed an order from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County before Judge Philip James Federico. The court issued a brief per curiam decision—joined by Chief Judge Lucas and Judges Khouzam and Sleet—stating simply: Affirmed. No further reasoning or opinion was published in this decision as presented.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's judgment in a criminal postconviction appeal by Kenneth James Kendrick. The court issued a short per curiam decision noting the appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) and concluding affirmation without published opinion. The panel (Lucas, Khouzam, and Sleet) concurred. No further reasoning or factual discussion appears in the published entry.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a County Court decision in a case between appellant Shella Lucien and appellee Pablo Martinez Ruiz. The appellate court, writing per curiam, concluded that Lucien failed to provide an adequate record for appellate review. Citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, the court explained that without a sufficient record it cannot resolve factual disputes or determine that the trial judge misapplied the law, so reversal is not warranted.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Edwin Proano's motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b) after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court deferred to the trial court's credibility findings, accepted trial counsel's tactical explanation for not calling a responding officer, and concluded there was competent, substantial evidence that no formal six-year plea offer existed. Because the record showed reasonable strategic choices and insufficient prejudice from counsel's actions, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling denying relief.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the county court’s denial of appellant Evan Neil Brooks’s motion to suppress evidence seized after a traffic stop. An officer on foot patrol in a crowded entertainment district observed Brooks accelerate, drive faster than surrounding traffic, and pass another vehicle by entering the opposite lane near many pedestrians. The court held those facts, viewed in context, provided probable cause to stop Brooks for careless driving under section 316.1925(1), and the officer’s observations of impairment after the stop supported Brooks’s DUI arrest. The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s factual findings and reviewed legal conclusions de novo.

The Third District Court of Appeal issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 29, 2026, affirming the judgment of the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court in the appeal brought by Walter B. Campbell. The appeal proceeded under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). No published opinion or extended reasoning is provided in the document; the court simply states the disposition as "Affirmed."

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal appeal brought by Oliver Thomas. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from decisions of the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County (Judge Richard Hersch). The opinion is per curiam, filed April 29, 2026, and states simply 'Affirmed.' No further reasoning or discussion appears in the opinion text provided.

The Third District Court of Appeal considered an appeal by Norman Williams from a Miami-Dade County circuit court decision. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appellate court, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No published opinion or extended reasoning appears in the filed entry; the judgment simply affirms the trial court's disposition and notes the decision is not final until any timely rehearing motion is resolved.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a civil case between appellant Kazi Ahmed and appellee Krzysztof Duszka. The appeal arose from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, and both parties appeared pro se. The per curiam opinion is brief and simply states the appeal is affirmed without published reasoning in the opinion. The ruling is subject to possible change if a timely motion for rehearing is filed.

The Third District Court of Appeal reviewed a criminal appeal by Jose D. Alcazar from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County under Florida appellate rules. The panel, in a brief per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's judgment. No opinion explaining the court's reasoning or the issues decided was published; the decision was entered on April 29, 2026, subject to any timely motion for rehearing.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a non-final circuit court order in a civil case where appellant Fernando Costantini Gomes sought to pursue punitive damages under Florida’s vulnerable-adult statutes. The panel held that the statutory framework permits a vulnerable adult to recover actual and punitive damages for abuse, neglect, or exploitation, but a plaintiff must make a reasonable showing in the record (or by proffer) that the defendant’s conduct amounted to intentional misconduct or gross negligence to justify punitive damages. Applying those standards, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute between Emilie Gonzalez and others (appellants) and Maria Del Pilar Alvarez (appellee). The appellate court concluded the record was insufficient to overturn the lower court and deferred to the trial judge's exercise of discretion. Citing precedent, the court explained that without a trial record the appellate court cannot resolve factual disputes or find an abuse of discretion, so the lower court's ruling stands.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal appeal brought by Drakar Lamar Smith against the State of Florida. The opinion, filed April 29, 2026, is per curiam and brief: the court announced its disposition as "Affirmed" without published reasoning in this short opinion. The decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a non-final circuit court order in a civil case between appellant Carlos A. Zarraluqui and appellees Fetes & Events, Inc., et al. The appeal arose from a 2023 Miami-Dade County proceeding and was argued by counsel for both sides. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision, simply stating 'Affirmed,' without published opinion or extended reasoning in this document. The judgment affirms the lower court's non-final ruling, and the mandate will follow after disposition of any timely motion for rehearing.

The appellate court reviewed Marie Fleurima's appeal from a Broward County circuit court final judgment. Because Fleurima did not provide a trial transcript and the offered statement of the evidence lacked the trial court's required approval under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(5), the Fourth District limited its review to errors apparent on the face of the final judgment and found none. The court therefore affirmed the trial court's judgment. The opinion cites Edman v. Edman as controlling precedent and notes the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Justin Pantzer's Florida Rule 3.800 postconviction motion. The panel relied on recent Florida precedent holding that a 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Erlinger) — even if a change in the law — does not apply retroactively, so Pantzer's claim based on that decision fails. The court cited Wainwright v. State and related Florida authority in reaching its decision and noted that the opinion is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of Christopher Garner’s writ petition after the California Victim Compensation Board rejected his request for compensation under Penal Code section 4900. Garner had his 2007 murder conviction vacated and resentenced under Penal Code section 1172.6, and he sought compensation for time served beyond the revised sentence. The Board denied the claim because Garner did not allege an "erroneous conviction" as required by section 4900 — his original conviction was lawful under the law in effect at the time — and the Board permissibly used a regulation (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 642) to screen and dismiss legally deficient claims without a hearing. The court held the statute and regulation were correctly applied and valid.

The Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court award of attorney fees to environmental group Raptors Are the Solution under California’s private attorney general statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5). Raptors sued the Department of Pesticide Regulation over its renewals and reevaluation decisions for certain rodenticides. Two trade associations (CropLife and RISE) intervened to defend the Department and were held jointly and severally liable for fees along with other defending parties. The appellate court found the associations had asserted direct pecuniary interests when seeking intervention, actively participated in the litigation, and therefore qualified as opposing parties eligible to share fee liability. The court also upheld the trial court’s fee calculation and refusal to apportion liability among defenders.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s judgment upholding the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals and the Department of Labor and Industries (DLI). The court held that the one-year limitation in RCW 51.32.240(1)(a) applies to benefits paid to injured workers and does not bar DLI from recouping overpayments made to health service providers like Office Careers. The court also affirmed partial summary judgment for DLI terminating Office Careers’ provider number, finding Office Careers failed to raise a genuine factual dispute and that DLI’s audits and use of available records were lawful.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of William Bernard White’s plea in bar asserting immunity under Georgia’s 9-1-1 Medical Amnesty Law (OCGA § 16-13-5). White was arrested on an outstanding probation-violation warrant after a 911 call reported an apparently unconscious driver; paramedics found no medical emergency, and a search incident to arrest uncovered fentanyl. The court held the statute protects defendants only when the incriminating evidence “resulted solely from seeking such medical assistance,” and here the evidence flowed from the arrest on the outstanding warrant, not from the 911 call.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Delaware County Common Pleas Court’s convictions and sentences of Billie Jo Kirven following her consolidated guilty pleas in two cases. Kirven argued the trial court convicted her without first accepting guilty pleas and that her pleas were not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary under Crim.R. 11. The appellate court reviewed the plea hearing transcript, found the record showed Kirven personally acknowledged and accepted the plea terms, received the required constitutional advisements, and that the court accepted the pleas after completing the advisements. The court held any irregular sequencing did not invalidate the pleas.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County trial court’s grant of summary judgment to BMI Federal Credit Union and its award of attorney fees after Carl Medley sued over the repossession and sale of his Audi. The trial court found Medley’s claims—fraud, waiver based on prior acceptance of late payments, emotional distress, and punitive damages—unsupported by admissible evidence, and granted BMI its deficiency, fees, and costs. The appellate court agreed that the loan’s anti-waiver language allowed BMI to accept late payments without forfeiting its rights, that BMI validly repossessed and sold the vehicle, and that Medley failed to rebut BMI’s evidence.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Belmont County Common Pleas Court's October 3, 2025 denial of Kawame Turner’s pro se motion for additional jail-time credit. Turner had pled guilty pursuant to a jointly recommended 36-month sentence in Case No. 19 CR 209 with 430 days credited, and later was convicted in a separate case (23 CR 258) for failure to appear and received 224 days credit. The appeals court held Turner’s current challenge was a substantive dispute about categories of credited time that must have been raised on direct appeal and is therefore barred by res judicata; Turner also waived review by agreeing to the jointly recommended sentence.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s November 5, 2025 dismissal without a hearing of Sammie Smith Jr.’s pro se August 5, 2025 filing titled “Motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial pursuant to Crim.R. 33(B).” The appellate court held the filing relied on Ohio’s postconviction statute (R.C. 2953.21) and was therefore properly treated as a petition for postconviction relief. The petition was untimely (filed nearly 14 years after the trial transcripts were filed), Smith failed to show an exception to the statute of limitations or to present operative facts or credible evidence entitling him to relief, and his claims were barred by res judicata.