Court Filings

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Jamal T. Jackson’s appeal from the circuit court in Orange County and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The opinion is per curiam, brief, and provides no published reasoning beyond affirmance. The appeal was taken pursuant to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and the panel affirmed the judgment below. The court noted the usual rehearing period and that the decision is not final until that period expires and any timely rehearing is resolved.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Edward and Roberta Kemp from a Lee County circuit court decision involving Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, simply stating the judgment was affirmed. No written opinion with reasoning was provided in the document; the court's summary disposition affirms the lower court's ruling without published explanation. The panel of Judges Stargel, Gannam, and Pratt concurred.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the trial court's decision in the criminal case of Casey Lynn Hennings. The appeal arose from proceedings in the Circuit Court for Orange County. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion, concluding there was no reversible error warranting relief. No separate written opinion or reasoning was published; the court affirmed the lower court's ruling and the panel members concurred.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Antwan D. Johnson's appeal from a Polk County circuit court decision and, in a short per curiam order, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief, contains no published reasoning, and the panel of judges concurred. The decision was issued April 21, 2026, and notes that it is not final until the time to file a motion for rehearing expires and any timely motion is resolved.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed Jerry Ray Walker's appeal from a Bay County circuit court decision. After consideration, the panel issued a per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's ruling. No opinion elaborating reasons was published; the judgment of the circuit court stands. The decision was entered April 21, 2026, and the court noted that the mandate is not final until resolution of any timely post-judgment motions under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed a criminal appeal by appellant Aaroney Okevious Reed from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, and affirmed the lower court's judgment. No published opinion explaining the court's reasoning appears in the document; the court simply announced its disposition and noted concurrence by the three judges. The decision is subject to any timely post-judgment motions permitted by Florida appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed an original petition for a writ of mandamus filed by P.R. and M.Z. against the Department of Children and Families. The opinion is per curiam, issued April 21, 2026, and does not include substantive reasoning in the published entry. The court noted the decision is not final until any timely motion under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 is resolved. Judges Lewis, Winokur, and Neff concurred.

The First District Court of Appeal issued a one-sentence per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment involving appellant Davion Hadden and the State of Florida. The appeal came from the Circuit Court for Leon County, before Judge Stephen Everett. No opinion explaining the court's reasoning or the issues on appeal appears in the document; the court simply affirmed the judgment and noted concurrence by the three judges. The decision is subject to timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order that dismissed multiple burglary, theft, and identity-theft charges after a defendant, Keena Landrine, was placed on mental health diversion. Although Landrine made substantial progress while in custody, the appellate court held the diversion statute requires defendants to substantially comply with diversion conditions before charges may be dismissed. Landrine repeatedly violated diversion requirements—relapsing on drugs, refusing recommended detox/treatment, and committing dozens of new criminal offenses—so the trial court abused its discretion by finding satisfactory performance. The matter is remanded for further proceedings on the dismissed charges.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of class certification in a wage-and-hour suit by Adam Martinez against Sierra Lifestar, Inc. Martinez alleged Lifestar excluded nondiscretionary bonuses (notably EMS Week bonuses) when calculating the regular rate of pay, underpaying overtime, double time, and meal/rest premiums for about 135 employees. The trial court denied certification because it found Martinez’s claim was not typical, reasoning he might be uniquely subject to a defense that his EMS Bonus was a gift or discretionary. The appellate court held that defense was not unique to Martinez and remanded for further class-certification proceedings.

The Court of Appeals (Eighth District, El Paso) dismissed Boss Lady Pub and Maria Elena Olvera’s appeal because they filed a notice of appeal but did not pay required appellate filing fees or show entitlement to proceed without payment. The clerk warned them that failure to pay by a specified deadline could result in dismissal; they did not respond or pay. The court therefore dismissed the appeal and any pending motions as moot on April 20, 2026.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas resolved two related proceedings brought by John D. Ferrara challenging a trial-court denial of his first amended application for post-conviction habeas relief. The court dismissed Ferrara’s direct appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court did not issue a merits-based writ or hold an evidentiary hearing before signing the denial. The court also denied Ferrara’s petition for writ of mandamus because he failed to show entitlement to extraordinary relief — he did not establish a clear ministerial duty by the trial court or that he lacked an adequate remedy by appeal.

The Sixth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the conviction of Justin Clayton Goldthrite for retaliation after reviewing the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial. Goldthrite argued the State failed to comply with two Texas criminal procedure statutes governing discovery and evidence handling (Articles 38.371 and 39.14). The court applied the same legal standard and analysis it used in a companion appeal and concluded the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial, so the judgment was affirmed.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of Texas affirmed Justin Clayton Goldthrite’s conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after the trial court denied his motion for new trial. Goldthrite argued the State failed to disclose incident reports under Texas discovery statutes and that those reports affected the voluntariness of his guilty plea and his ability to use relationship evidence. The court applied Texas precedent holding a guilty plea is voluntary if the defendant had sufficient awareness of circumstances and found Goldthrite was aware of the incidents and had questioned the complaining witness, so no error was shown.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the King County Assessor in a class action brought by the Washington Hospitality Association (WHA). WHA sought property tax relief under RCW 84.70.010(1), arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic qualified as a “natural disaster” that reduced hotel property values. The court held that “natural disaster” in the statute refers to a physically destructive event originating in the earth, atmosphere, or planet (e.g., flood, earthquake, eruption), and does not encompass a pandemic or disease-related economic losses. Because WHA’s properties suffered no physical damage, relief was unavailable.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Samuel Leon Dugan’s convictions and life-without-parole sentence under Washington’s Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA). Dugan had been convicted after a bench trial of first-degree promoting prostitution (with domestic violence findings), unlawful possession of a firearm, third-degree assault, and harassment. The trial court found two prior qualifying convictions and imposed mandatory LWOP. The court rejected Dugan’s challenges that the POAA is cruel or discriminatorily applied, and rejected his Sixth Amendment claim that a jury should have decided the timing of prior convictions, relying on state precedent allowing judicial factfinding of prior convictions.

The Washington Court of Appeals reviewed Harlan Blackburn’s convictions for multiple counts of incest and child rape. The court held that police violated his state constitutional privacy rights by obtaining hotel and purchase data without a warrant, but that the admission of that evidence was harmless. It reversed one conviction (Count 8 for incest in the first degree) for insufficient evidence as to the specific dates charged, affirmed the other convictions, and remanded for resentencing on Counts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 because the combined confinement and community custody terms exceeded statutory maximums. The court explained which testimony supported each upheld conviction and the basis for the sentencing remand.

The Georgia Court of Appeals issued an order on April 20, 2026 denying the appellant Dorrin Johnson's emergency motion for a stay of enforcement pending appeal in the matter captioned Johnson v. Molleda. The court declined to pause enforcement of the underlying judgment or order while the appeal proceeds. The decision is a brief administrative disposition denying the requested temporary relief without extended explanation in the excerpt provided.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal filed by Robyn J. Monroe seeking review in case A26D0437 (LC No. 25A07465) against Rodney E. Monroe. After consideration, the court denied the application for discretionary appeal on April 20, 2026. The order is brief and does not state reasons; it is an administrative disposition declining to grant review by the appellate court.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in Pimentel v. Morquecho because the appellant failed to file a required brief and enumerations of error by the court's deadline of April 13, 2026. The court issued a formal order on April 20, 2026, noting the missed filing and entered dismissal as the disposition. No opinion on the merits was reached because the procedural default (failure to file required appellate documents) warranted dismissal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals denied the appellant's emergency motion seeking a stay or supersedeas while the appeal is docketed. The order is a short administrative disposition entered on April 20, 2026, declining temporary relief; it does not address the merits of the underlying appeal. The clerk certified the order as an extract from the court minutes.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Jimmy Wallace's appeal as premature. Wallace was convicted and filed a timely motion for new trial, then filed a motion to withdraw that motion and the next day filed a notice of appeal. Because the trial court had not yet ruled on the motion for new trial or the motion to withdraw it, the case remained pending below and the appellate court lacked jurisdiction under Georgia law. The court relied on statutory timing rules for appeals and precedent holding that the appellate clock does not start until the trial court finally disposes of a motion for new trial.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal in the case Samuel Kwushue v. City of Atlanta and denied the application. The order is brief: the Court of Appeals reviewed the application and entered an order denying it on April 20, 2026. No opinion or reasoning is provided in the document; the entry is a procedural disposition that leaves the lower-court decision in place and does not grant further review by this court.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted an application for interlocutory appeal by Triduum Associates, LLC and others in their case against Holly Springs, Georgia. The court's order allows the appellant to file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days and directs the superior court clerk to include this order in the record sent to the Court of Appeals. The decision is procedural: it merely authorizes taking an immediate appeal before final judgment and sets short timing and transmission instructions for the record.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Matthew Pajestka’s conviction for operating a vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration. After two prior remands and appointment of a visiting judge, Pajestka sought a continuance shortly before a November 21, 2024 jury trial because his defense expert was unavailable; the municipal court denied the requests and proceeded. The appellate court held that denial of the continuance was not an abuse of discretion, declined to review ineffective-assistance claims raised on direct appeal because the same firm represented him at trial and on appeal, and found the breath-test evidence sufficient and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed Todd A. Dunlap’s convictions for multiple sexual offenses based on abuse of his niece between about ages 12–14. Dunlap waived a jury; the trial court found him guilty on eight counts and sentenced him to consecutive terms on rape counts, finding him a sexual predator. On appeal he raised ten assignments of error challenging sufficiency and weight of evidence, pre-indictment delay, destroyed evidence, other-acts evidence, indictment specificity, chain of custody, cumulative error, and ineffective assistance. The appellate court found the evidence credible, no actual prejudice from delay or destroyed items, no bad-faith destruction, proper handling of other-acts and chain-of-custody issues, and no ineffective assistance.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Trumbull County Common Pleas Court’s sentence of an aggregate 7-to-10½ year prison term for David Lucero, who pleaded guilty to ten second-degree felony counts involving creation and distribution of sexual material depicting minors. The appellate court reviewed Lucero’s claim that the trial court failed to properly consider sentencing statutes and alternatives to prison but found the trial court expressly stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and the imposed sentences fall within the statutory range. Because the record shows consideration of the required factors, the court found no reversible error and affirmed.

The Court of Appeals reversed a Trumbull County Central District Court order that had prohibited a surety, Chuck Brown II Bail Bonds, from posting any future bonds until a $1,000 forfeited bond for defendant Breonne F. Davis was paid. The trial court revoked Davis’s bond after she failed to appear, declared the bond forfeited, and imposed the prohibition without following the statutory notice-and-hearing procedures. The appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion by not providing ordinary-mail notice and a 45–60 day period to show cause under Ohio law, and remanded for compliance with the statute.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Clermont County Domestic Relations Court's final divorce decree between Kenyata (Wife) and Chris Packer (Husband). The appellate court upheld the trial court's $480,000 valuation of Husband's 75% interest in his company Rod-Techs, finding the valuation supported by competent, credible evidence from experts and rejecting Husband's challenges under the rules for expert testimony. The court also upheld the property equalization payment of about $80,000 to Wife and the spousal support award of $1,520 per month for 106 months, finding the trial court appropriately considered statutory factors.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's denial of Mother's Civ.R. 60(B) motion seeking relief from the adjudication that one child was abused and three were dependent and the related dispositional orders. Mother argued she lacked counsel at critical stages, counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain discovery, the juvenile court failed to comply with procedural safeguards for stipulations, WCCS committed fraud by labeling kinship placements as "foster children" on clothing vouchers, and no safety plan was offered. The appellate court held these claims either were not operative facts warranting an evidentiary hearing, were time-barred or barred by res judicata, and did not satisfy the three-part Civ.R. 60(B) test.