Court Filings

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.

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.