Court Filings

The court reviewed Andre Hunter's appeal from a Manatee County circuit court decision under Florida appellate rules. The Second District Court of Appeal, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion is short, unsigned, and gives no published reasoning; it simply states the judgment is affirmed and that the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, affirmed the circuit court's decision in a case brought by Nancy M. Gavrilis, as personal representative of the Estate of John Monteforte, and intervenor Stylianos Gavrilis, against appellee Sabrina Hayes. The appeal challenged the lower court's ruling; the appellate panel issued a short per curiam opinion simply stating 'Affirmed.' No opinion text explaining reasoning or issues is included in the document, and the judges concurred. The decision leaves the circuit court's judgment intact.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in a civil dispute between appellant Katalin Fodor and appellee Krisztian Gonda. The appeal was taken to the district court from the Pinellas County Circuit Court, and the appellate panel, writing per curiam, concluded that the lower court's ruling should stand. No extended opinion, reasoning, or factual discussion was provided in the published disposition beyond the court's one-line affirmance and concurrence by the three judges.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by Stephanie Candace Moure Cramer from a Sarasota County circuit court decision in a dispute against Brendan Walker. The Second District issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 29, 2026, concluding only that the lower court's judgment should be affirmed. No published reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis appears in the opinion beyond the single-word disposition and concurrence by all three judges, and the opinion is subject to revision before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal of Florida considered an appeal by Jason Casanas from a decision of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion concluding that the circuit court's ruling should be affirmed. No extended reasoning, factual background, or specific legal issues are discussed in the published entry; the panel of judges concurred and the opinion was filed April 29, 2026.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed the county court's decision in favor of Hillsborough County Animal Control. Maurice F. Bayless, appearing pro se, appealed a county court judgment; the appeals court reviewed the matter and concluded there was no reversible error. The per curiam opinion provided no extended discussion and simply affirmed the lower court's ruling, with judges Morris, Atkinson, and Labrit concurring. No detailed factual or legal reasoning appears in the published entry.

The Second District Court of Appeal of Florida reviewed a pro se appeal by Labronx Bailey from a Hillsborough County circuit court order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appellate court, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's decision. No substantive reasoning or opinion text is provided in the published entry beyond the single-word disposition and concurrence by three judges. The opinion may be revised before official publication.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reviewed an appeal by Louis Narada Armstrong from a Manatee County circuit court decision. After considering the parties' filings and arguments, the appellate court issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The opinion was brief, filed April 29, 2026, and did not elaborate reasoning in the published entry; the panel of judges concurred and the judgment of the circuit court stands as affirmed.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment below in a criminal case. The appeal was taken by Anthony Carl Williams, who proceeded pro se, from a decision of the Circuit Court for Alachua County. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion, summarily rejecting the appellant's contentions and affirming the lower court's ruling without extended opinion. The panel judges concurred and the opinion notes the decision is not final until any timely authorized post-opinion motions are resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal/post-conviction matter brought by appellant Pythis Pleas. The per curiam opinion, issued April 29, 2026, contains a single-line disposition: AFFIRMED. The panel (Bilbrey, Kelsey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ.) concurred and noted the decision is not final until any timely permitted motions under Florida appellate rules are resolved. No reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis is included in the published entry.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal case involving appellant Kemauri Lionel McNeal and the State of Florida. The opinion is per curiam, brief, and states only the disposition "AFFIRMED" without publishing reasoning in this document. The appeal arose from a judgment or order entered by the Circuit Court for Escambia County before Judge Amy P. Brodersen. The panel of judges (Lewis, Rowe, and Nordby) concurred, and the opinion notes that the decision is not final until any timely authorized motion is resolved under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Joseph Luther’s appeal and addressed a sentencing discrepancy. The trial court orally pronounced concurrent life sentences on Counts I and II, but the written sentencing order incorrectly stated the sentences would run consecutively. Because the orally pronounced sentence controls when the written order conflicts, the court reversed in part and remanded for the trial court to enter a written sentence matching the oral pronouncement. The remainder of the judgment and sentence was affirmed.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed Gregory Wayne Orlando Lee's appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County and unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion is per curiam, brief, and provides no extended reasoning in the published entry. The court's ruling leaves in place the judgment or order entered by the trial court and notes that the decision is not final until any timely postjudgment motion under Florida appellate rules is resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Tyrell Harris from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 29, 2026, and affirmed the lower court's ruling. No detailed reasoning is provided in the published entry; the court's short opinion simply states the judgment is affirmed and notes judges concurred. The decision is subject to potential timely motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 before becoming final.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Shawn A. Tyson from a Sarasota County circuit court order. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision and affirmed the lower court's judgment. No opinion content or legal reasoning is provided in the published entry beyond the single-word disposition and noting that the judgment is subject to revision prior to official publication.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, affirmed the judgment below in a criminal appeal by Rashad Taylor from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The appeal was filed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The per curiam opinion, joined by all judges, issues a brief disposition affirming the lower court's decision without published opinion and notes the opinion may be revised before official publication.

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 reversed a final summary judgment of foreclosure entered for Miami Beach Townhomes because the trial court never adjudicated the homeowner-appellant Steven Kwartin’s pending affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The Association proved overdue assessments and obtained a judgment liquidating the amount due, but the judgment did not rule on Kwartin’s claims that he had tendered payment, that the Association rejected payments, and that it breached duties. The appellate court followed precedent holding a foreclosure judgment is premature and reversible when interrelated defenses and counterclaims remain unresolved.

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 affirmed most of the trial court's summary judgment in favor of FAM Productions and Herrera, holding that plaintiff Saldana's claims based on four successive loans are limited to a single claim against FAM Productions (Washington) on the fourth loan and that neither FAM (Florida) nor Herrera are liable on the notes. The panel reversed the portion of the judgment dismissing Saldana’s claim against FAM (Washington) without prejudice to arbitration because the trial court did not resolve Saldana’s argument that FAM (Washington) waived arbitration by its litigation conduct. The case is remanded for the trial court to decide waiver in the first instance.

The Third District Court of Appeal granted a writ of certiorari and quashed the trial court’s February 6 and February 19, 2026 discovery orders that compelled the petitioner to appear for an in-person deposition in Miami-Dade County after a final default judgment had been entered. The appellate court concluded that once a final judgment is entered, the trial court lacks authority to order depositions in the case in chief and may only permit post-judgment discovery limited to execution or certain narrow exceptions not present here. Because the discovery orders sought materials and testimony that should have been obtained before judgment, they were improper and subject to certiorari relief.

The Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial-court order that denied Hartford’s motion to dismiss MSP Recovery’s second amended complaint. MSP had sued for a pure bill of discovery and declaratory relief under Florida’s motor-vehicle no-fault statute, alleging the trial court had specific personal jurisdiction over Hartford. The trial court found Hartford had abandoned its jurisdictional defense, but the appellate court held Hartford did not abandon that defense and, applying a recent controlling precedent (USAA Casualty Ins. Co. v. MSP Recovery Claims), concluded the long-arm jurisdictional allegations were insufficient. The case is dismissed and remanded with directions to dismiss the action.

The Third District Court of Appeal reviewed George Madison’s challenge to his enhanced sentences for kidnapping, carjacking, robbery, and two identity-fraud counts. Madison argued the trial judge, rather than a jury, made the factual findings that triggered statutory enhancements and that the findings were made by a preponderance standard. The court held that any constitutional error under Erlinger was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the State presented unrebutted evidence at sentencing that plainly supported the enhancements. The court affirmed the enhancements but reversed and remanded to correct errors in the written sentencing order so it matches the oral pronouncements.