Court Filings

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed De’erik Bell’s appeal from a Bay County circuit court decision. The panel issued a short per curiam opinion on April 20, 2026, affirming the lower court’s judgment. No additional opinion or published reasoning accompanied the disposition; the court simply affirmed the judgment below and noted concurrence by all three judges. The opinion advises that the decision is not final until resolution of any timely, authorized post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed Terrence Pellet’s petition for a writ of prohibition seeking relief against the Florida Department of Revenue, Child Support Program. The petition was filed in the court’s original jurisdiction, and the per curiam order simply states the petition is dismissed without published opinion. All three judges concurred. No additional reasoning, factual findings, or relief were set forth in the decision.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by a child identified as H.H.E. from a decision of the Circuit Court for Jackson County. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion on April 20, 2026, summarily affirming the lower court's judgment. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published; the decision states only “AFFIRMED” with all three judges concurring. The ruling ends this appeal unless a timely motion for rehearing or other authorized relief is filed.

The Second District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed a county court judgment in a criminal/procedural matter. The appeal was brought pro se by Rosea Maria White and was argued on the record from Pinellas County before Judge Diane M. Croff. The panel, in a per curiam decision, unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling without published opinion, and the judgment stands as decided by the county court. No additional reasoning or substantive analysis was provided in the published entry.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court. The appeal was brought by Jennifer Suzanne Waters against the State of Florida following a proceeding in the Circuit Court for DeSoto County. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment without a published opinion, and all three judges concurred. No new legal analysis or changes to the trial-court outcome were announced in this short entry.

The District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's dismissal of a misdemeanor information charging Christine Heidi Scott with resisting or obstructing officers without violence. The trial court had required ever-more specific allegations about the exact legal duties the deputies were performing and dismissed the second amended information as vague. The appellate court held the original information was legally sufficient because it tracked the statute, gave date and place, and provided adequate notice; any further detail was a matter for proof or for a statement of particulars, not a required element of the charging document.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute between Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc. (doing business as JET ICU) and two Blue Cross entities. The appeal challenged the circuit court's judgment, but the appellate court, in a per curiam opinion, concluded that the lower-court ruling should stand and issued an affirmance without published opinion. The panel unanimously agreed to affirm, with no extended written analysis included in the opinion provided.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirmed a county court decision in an appeal brought by Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc. (d/b/a Jet ICU) against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company (d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana). The opinion is per curiam, short, and simply states the judgment was affirmed without published reasoning in this entry. The panel of judges Lucas (C.J.), Kelly, and Smith concurred. The decision was filed April 17, 2026.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a pro se appeal by Monika Margarethe Shirley from an order of the Sarasota County Circuit Court. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published beyond the single-word disposition, and no appellee participated in the appeal. The panel of judges Silberman, Morris, and Black concurred in the affirmance.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, considered an appeal by Marquise Devon Ponder from a decision of the Circuit Court for Manatee County. After review, the appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision simply stating 'Affirmed' without opinion, thereby upholding the lower court's judgment. The panel of judges (Kelly, Khouzam, and Sleet) concurred. No further reasoning or discussion was provided in the published entry, and the opinion is subject to possible revision before official publication.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal denied Spiros C. Paizes's petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a Hillsborough County circuit court decision. The petition was considered on its merits and the appellate court, in a brief per curiam order, concluded relief was not warranted and denied the petition. All three judges concurred. No additional reasoning or detailed factual background was provided in the published entry.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed the lower court's decision in the appeal brought by Scott Meier against the State of Florida. The panel issued a per curiam opinion on April 17, 2026, concluding that the trial court's judgment should stand. No reasoning or detailed factual findings were provided in the published entry, and three judges (Black, Atkinson, Smith) concurred. The appeal arose from the Manatee County Circuit Court before Judge Frederick P. Mercurio.

The appellate court reviewed a criminal appeal by Markeis Daveon Levatte from a Hillsborough County circuit court decision. After briefing and substitution of counsel, the District Court of Appeal for the Second District issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The opinion was short and did not include detailed reasoning in the published entry, but the panel concurred and the judgment remained in effect pending any further review or official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling in a case where Hydro-Dyne Engineering, Inc. appealed from a Pinellas County circuit court decision involving Michael Williams, Scott Griffith, Cornerstone Mechanical, LLC, and Cornerstone H20, LLC. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. The appellate court issued a one-line per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment, with three judges concurring. No further opinion or reasoning was provided in the published docket entry.

The appellate court reviewed a pro se appeal by Norman Chris Hrabovsky from an order of the Pinellas County Circuit Court involving Trask Daigneault, LLP and two individual defendants. After considering the parties' submissions, the Second District affirmed the lower court's decision. The per curiam opinion provides no extended factual or legal analysis in the published entry, simply announcing the affirmance and noting concurrence by the three judges. No further explanation of the circuit court's reasoning or the issues decided is included in the short published entry.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Yordan Hernandez from a decision of the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. After considering the parties' submissions, the appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's ruling. The short per curiam opinion provides the disposition without published reasoning, and the decision is subject to possible revision before official publication.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by K.H. concerning a dependency matter involving the child Z.A. The Department of Children and Families and the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office were appellees. After considering the record and arguments, the court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower circuit court's ruling. The opinion contains no extended discussion of facts or legal reasoning and simply affirms the trial court's decision without published opinion.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The appeal was taken by Patrick Gilles from an order of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, presided over by Judge Lindsay Alvarez. Both parties appeared pro se. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision without published opinion and the panel of judges concurred.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in a dispute involving members and the estate of Emma Jean Baldwin. The appeal was brought pro se by Chad R. Baldwin against the estate and several relatives. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion stating only 'Affirmed' without published reasoning, and the panel of three judges concurred. The decision leaves the lower court's judgment intact and ends this stage of appellate review.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reviewed an appeal by A.R. from a decision of the Circuit Court for Pasco County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. No opinion content or underlying facts, issues, or reasoning are provided in the published entry; the court simply announced 'Affirmed' with three judges concurring and noted the opinion is subject to revision before official publication.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a Rule 3.800(a) postconviction claim brought by Deanijah Denson. The court concluded the appeal did not provide a basis for relief under Rule 3.800(a) but left open Denson's ability to seek relief in the underlying circuit court case (2020-CF-002358-A) under Rule 3.850. The opinion cites precedent explaining the proper procedural vehicle for the relief sought and therefore affirms the appellate disposition while directing the appellant to the appropriate remedy in circuit court.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a pro se 3.800 postconviction appeal brought by Charles James Skolnick challenging denial of relief in Duval County (Case No. 16-2015-CF-009362-A). The court notes it previously affirmed the trial court's denial and found Skolnick's subsequent filings in this court relating to that case to be repetitive, frivolous, and abusive. The court cautioned that further frivolous pro se filings may trigger sanctions, including prohibition on future pro se filings and referral for prison disciplinary proceedings that could include loss of gain time.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed Brent Paul Venrooy’s criminal judgment and sentence after an Anders brief, finding no reversible error in the conviction or sentencing. The court did, however, remand to the trial court to enter a corrected judgment removing a $100 investigative costs fee because the State never requested investigative costs. The court relied on Richards v. State to hold that investigative costs may be imposed only when the State has expressly requested them. The panel issued its decision per curiam on April 17, 2026.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed Stephanie Proffitt’s convictions and rejected her claim that the trial court imposed a vindictive sentence after she declined the State’s plea offer. The court reviewed the record and Wilson factors, finding the trial judge did not initiate plea negotiations, did not depart from the role of an impartial arbiter, and provided reasons for the sentence based on trial evidence and rejection of mitigation. Because the totality of circumstances did not create a presumption of vindictiveness, the appellate court affirmed the sentencing decision.

The Sixth District reversed and remanded a jury verdict in a car-accident negligence suit because the trial court wrongly excluded deposition testimony of the sheriff’s office organizational representative about the office’s internal investigation and finding that its deputy’s crash was “preventable” and therefore the deputy was at fault. The district court held the trial court’s stated legal bases for exclusion did not support it and concluded the appellate court cannot apply the evidentiary balancing rule (Section 90.403) in the first instance to affirm under the tipsy coachman doctrine. The case is remanded for a new trial and the court certified conflict with two First District decisions.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed part of a trial court order in a parenting-plan relocation case because the trial court granted permanent relocation relief after a hearing that had been noticed only for temporary relief. The appellant had requested both temporary and permanent relief, but the notice for the July 17, 2024 hearing specified only temporary relief. The appellate court held that granting permanent relief without proper notice violated due process. The court affirmed the temporary relief, reversed the permanent-relief portion, and remanded for a proper final hearing on permanent relocation.

The Sixth District reversed a county court's orders that had set aside a default final judgment for possession and dismissed an eviction complaint. Landlord Wayne Rickert sued tenants Karen and Erin Valencia for nonpayment of rent under an oral month-to-month tenancy and obtained a default final judgment after the tenants failed to timely pay the rent allegedly due on September 1. The appellate court held the tenants waived defenses other than payment by not paying alleged rent when due or timely moving to have the rent determined, so the trial court erred in vacating the default and dismissing the complaint. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal dismissed Molly Dorsey’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court found the trial court’s December 6, 2024 orders (an Amended Order of Summary Administration and an Amended Order Determining Homestead Status) were final, but Dorsey filed her notice of appeal on February 12, 2025—outside the 30-day deadline. Because no timely appeal of any final order was filed, the appellate court also lacked jurisdiction over earlier nonfinal orders and motions. The court rejected attempts to toll the appeal period and concluded the appeal must be dismissed.

The Sixth District reversed a trial-court judgment that had enforced a 1973 deed addendum requiring Riviera’s land to be used as a golf course. The trial court had concluded the restriction remained enforceable because it was preserved by a 1990 affidavit (the Gifford Affidavit). The appellate court held the affidavit was not a muniment of title and therefore could not preserve the pre-root restriction under Florida’s Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA). Because no muniment preserved the restriction, MRTA extinguished it; the case is remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for Riviera.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a family/domestic case (circuit court for Polk County) in which Ernie Blazeff appealed from an order involving Vladimir Ohayon. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion simply stating 'AFFIRMED' and citing Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). No additional factual findings or substantive reasoning are provided in the opinion; the panel unanimously concurred. The clerk notes the opinion is not final until the rehearing period expires.