Court Filings

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.

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 reversed a circuit court order that summarily denied Traves Malcolm’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion claiming newly discovered evidence (a previously unknown 20-year plea offer). The appellate court agreed the motion was facially deficient because it lacked a proper oath and did not include an affidavit from trial counsel as required by rule 3.850(c)(7) (or explain why one could not be obtained). Because the trial court denied the motion without giving Malcolm an opportunity to amend those defects, the appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed a final judgment in a divorce case. The court affirmed most issues raised by Husband but reversed two rulings affecting Wife: the denial of retroactive child support and the omission of family photographs and videos from equitable distribution. The court found the record contained uncontroverted evidence of the child’s needs and Husband’s ability to pay, and held that family photographs and videos created or acquired during the marriage are marital assets. The case is remanded for the trial court to determine the retroactive support amount and to include and distribute the photographic materials.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed a dissolution of marriage judgment after both parties appealed. The appellate court found multiple deficiencies in the trial court’s final judgment — missing asset and liability designations, insufficient factual findings (including valuation of the husband’s law practice, temporary support modification, prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees) — but concluded many issues were preserved by a timely motion for rehearing. The court also held the trial court erred in treating a premarital Wells Fargo brokerage account as marital property because the record shows marital funds used to pay a secured margin loan were traceable and did not commingle the account except possibly for a de minimis amount. The matter was remanded for specific findings and correction of errors.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a three-year injunction for protection against stalking that the trial court had entered for the Wife against the Girlfriend. The appellate court held the evidence did not show the two separate, legally distinct instances of harassment required by Florida law: the October 23 barrage of messages constituted a single episode, and the other alleged acts (two social-media posts and one child-support text) were either isolated or served legitimate purposes. The court also found the communications did not objectively cause the high level of emotional distress the statute requires.

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 Fourth District reversed a trial court order denying dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Ruth sued nonresident trustee Dunham Trust Company (DTC) in Florida for breach of fiduciary duties related to a trust created by a Florida resident. The court held DTC’s acceptance of a successor co-trusteeship and routine communications to a beneficiary who later moved to Florida were insufficient to show that DTC purposefully availed itself of conducting business in Florida. Because DTC’s administration occurred in Nevada and contacts with Florida were tied to unilateral acts of the settlor/beneficiary, due process was not satisfied.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal partially reversed and partially affirmed Devonte Baker’s convictions related to multiple tire-slashing incidents. The court held the State failed to prove Baker’s identity for the first incident and failed to prove he was armed for two armed-trespass counts. It reversed counts 1 and 2 (identity insufficiency), reduced counts 4 and 6 from armed trespass to simple trespass, and ordered vacation of counts 8 and 9 from the judgment because they had already been acquitted. The court affirmed convictions for counts 3, 5 (criminal mischiefs), and 7 (stalking), and remanded for amended judgments and resentencing.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Christopher J. Porter’s convictions for sexual battery and related lewd offenses but reversed part of his sentence. The court found the trial judge had orally imposed life imprisonment for the sexual-battery count and concurrent mandatory minimums for two molestation counts, but the written judgment mistakenly listed a 25-year minimum for the sexual-battery count. The court ordered correction of the written sentence to strike the improper 25-year mandatory minimum for the sexual-battery count and also directed removal of misdemeanor costs; it upheld a $65 county ordinance court cost as properly imposed.

The appellate court reversed a county court order denying the landlord’s motion to dismiss or transfer a security-deposit suit for improper venue. The complaint showed the leased property, tenancy, and a prior eviction action were all in Hillsborough County and did not allege any office or agent of the landlord in Palm Beach County. Because the plaintiff did not plead a sufficient basis for selecting Palm Beach County, the Fourth District held venue is proper in Hillsborough County and remanded with directions to grant the motion and transfer the case there.

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 Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Shaun Patrick Stewart's appeal from a Sumter County circuit court decision and, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief; the court issued a short ruling without published reasoning and all three judges concurred. The decision notes that it is not final until any timely, authorized post-decision motions are resolved under Florida appellate rules. No additional factual or legal analysis is included in the opinion.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Gregory Simpson's appeal from a Marion County circuit court postconviction proceeding under Florida Rule 3.800. The court, in a brief per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's decision, citing Galindez v. State and Washington v. Recuenco to support its ruling. No appellee appearance was entered and the appellant proceeded pro se. The opinion concludes the appellate court saw no reversible error and affirmed the circuit court's disposition without extended discussion.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute between the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (appellant) and A & B Verma Family, LLC (appellee). The appeal arose from a Volusia County circuit court ruling; the appellate panel issued a brief per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's judgment without published opinion. All three judges concurred. The mandate notes that the decision is not final until any timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules are resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Erique Goshay's appeal from his criminal conviction and sentence in Duval County. After considering the briefs and record, the appellate court issued a per curiam opinion that affirms the lower court's decision without published opinion or stated reasons. The judgment of the circuit court is left in place and the panel of judges unanimously concurred. The opinion notes that it is not final until any timely post-opinion motions are resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a pro se appeal by David Charles Sussman. The appeal challenged actions involving the Assistant State Attorney, a circuit judge, and the Assistant Attorney General. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the circuit court without published opinion or extended reasoning. The opinion is final subject to timely authorized post-judgment motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a criminal case. Calvin W. Thomas appealed a Seminole County circuit court decision; the appellate panel issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 28, 2026, simply stating AFFIRMED. The court did not elaborate its reasoning in the published entry and the three-judge panel concurred. No additional factual findings, legal analysis, or instructions were included in the opinion.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Antonio Christopher Youngblood's appeal from a Duval County circuit court criminal case. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's judgment. No published opinion or extended reasoning is provided in the document; the court simply issued an affirmance with all three judges concurring. The decision becomes final unless a timely, authorized motion for rehearing or certification is filed under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal trial-court ruling in a case where Alan G. Williams, individually and as personal representative of an estate, appealed against Pace Island Owners Association, Inc. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 28, 2026, simply stating AFFIRMED without published opinion or extended reasoning. The panel of judges (Jay, C.J., Edwards, and Harris, JJ.) concurred, and the judgment is nonfinal pending any timely authorized post-decision motions under Florida appellate rules.