Court Filings

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Robin Cornelison from a decision of the Circuit Court of Escambia County against Enterprise Leasing Company South Central, LLC d/b/a Enterprise Car Sales. The appellate court issued a short, per curiam opinion on April 30, 2026 and affirmed the lower court's decision. No opinion text or reasoning beyond the single-word disposition was included in the published entry; the court simply announced 'AFFIRMED' and the three judges concurred.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Chandler Washington's appeal from a Leon County circuit court decision and, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is terse: the panel announced its decision to affirm without extended explanation. All three judges concurred, and the opinion notes the ruling is not final until any timely, authorized rehearing motions are resolved. Chandler Washington appeared pro se; the State was represented by the Attorney General's office.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a civil case between appellant Yosbani Jose Hernandez and appellee law firm Shutts & Bowen LLP. The appeal (No. 4D2025-1642) came from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam affirmance without published opinion, adopting the lower court's disposition and leaving the case concluded unless a timely motion for rehearing is filed.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Wilbert Griffin of a circuit court order denying his Rule 3.850 motion (postconviction relief). The court, in a short per curiam decision with no written opinion, affirmed the denial. The opinion notes the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. No analysis or reasoning was provided in the published entry.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the county court's decision in a criminal matter. Thomas Souffrant appealed a judgment from Broward County (case no. 062023MM006736A88810). After review, the appellate court, per curiam, concluded the lower court's ruling should be upheld and entered an affirmance. The opinion was brief, without published reasoning, and the court noted the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment below in a criminal case. The appeal by Stravious B. Johnson from his conviction/sentencing in the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County, was reviewed and the appellate panel unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion is per curiam, with concurrence from all three judges. The opinion does not state detailed reasoning in the published entry 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 decision in a dispute between appellant Richard Block and appellee Midwest One Bank. The appeal, taken from an order in Palm Beach County Circuit Court (case no. 502024CA008105XXXAMB), was argued pro se by Block; Midwest One Bank was represented by counsel. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion stating simply: Affirmed. No separate written opinion, legal analysis, or change in the lower court's judgment was provided in the published entry.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's nonfinal orders in a consolidated appeal brought by LP Glass Technologies, Inc. against Barron Development Corporation. The appellate panel, in a brief per curiam decision, concluded that the lower court's rulings should stand and did not provide extended reasoning in the published entry. The opinion affirms the challenged orders and notes the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed two consolidated nonfinal circuit court orders in a civil dispute between LP Glass Technologies, Inc. (appellant) and Barron Development Corporation (appellee). The opinion is per curiam, brief, and provides no substantive reasoning in the published entry; it simply states the appellate disposition as affirmed, with concurrence by all three judges. The decision is not final pending any timely rehearing motion. No further factual or legal detail was provided in the opinion itself.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment in a case in which Kevin Bain, representing himself, appealed a decision involving Aaron Bryan. The appeal arose from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County. The panel issued a per curiam opinion simply stating "Affirmed" without published reasoning. The court noted the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. No further factual or legal detail is provided in the opinion.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's rulings in two consolidated criminal cases brought by the State of Florida against Hector Calderon. The appeal was taken from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's disposition without published opinion; the decision remains subject to a timely motion for rehearing. No additional reasoning or factual discussion appears in the opinion.

The District Court of Appeal for Florida's Fourth District affirmed a nonfinal county court order in an appeal filed by George Lambro in a case against Eduardo Lautieri. The opinion is short: the panel issued a per curiam affirmance without published reasoning. The decision was entered on April 30, 2026, and the judgment is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. Lambro appeared pro se; appellee was represented by counsel.

The appellate court reviewed Charles F. Cheleden's appeal from final agency actions by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Community Association Management. After considering the record and briefs, the court unanimously affirmed the agency's decisions. The opinion is short and does not elaborate on legal reasoning in the published entry; it simply states the judgment affirming the agency. The decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal order from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, in a dispute between Carlos De La Paz Bernitt (appellant, proceeding pro se from Ecuador) and U.S. Bank National Association as trustee (appellee). The panel issued a short per curiam decision, simply stating 'Affirmed' and noting the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. No substantive reasoning or factual discussion appears in the published entry.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in the criminal case of Carlensky Deneville. The appeal was taken from a conviction or judgment entered in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion simply stating 'Affirmed' without published reasoning, with three judges concurring. The opinion notes it is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Bidbumpers, LLC and Christian C. Carmona from a Broward County Court decision involving Lobel Financial Corp. The appellate court, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's judgment. No extended opinion, reasoning, or change to the trial court's disposition was published; the mandate is subject to possible change if a timely motion for rehearing is filed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order denying Bachir Osias's motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Osias, proceeding pro se, appealed the denial of his postconviction relief motion filed in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam disposition, concluding there was no reversible error in the denial and therefore affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion was unanimous and notes it is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal circuit-court order in a civil dispute between A&J Capital Inc. (appellant) and HC CBA, LLC (appellee). The opinion is per curiam, issued April 30, 2026, and provides no extended reasoning in the published entry. The appellate panel unanimously affirmed the lower court's nonfinal order, leaving any further relief dependent on timely post-opinion motions. The opinion is not final until resolution of any timely motion for rehearing.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a criminal case in which James William Chaney appealed his conviction or sentence. The appeal arose from the Circuit Court for Lake County before Judge Brian J. Welke. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 30, 2026, simply stating 'AFFIRMED' with all judges concurring, and provided no published opinion or extended reasoning in the decision document provided.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed multiple consolidated appeals in which the State challenged rulings involving defendant Jadarius Brown. After consideration, the court issued a per curiam opinion on April 30, 2026, affirming the lower court's decision. The opinion is brief: it affirms the judgment of the trial court without published opinion or extended explanation, and the three-judge panel concurred. The mandate is subject to any timely rehearing motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida Supreme Court reversed a circuit court order that denied death-row inmate James Aren Duckett access to the underlying DNA testing data from a private laboratory. Duckett had obtained a court-ordered DNA test of a 1987 swab but sought the raw data so a qualified bioinformaticist could perform further statistical analysis (SNP/Y-SNP data). The Court held the statute and rule permitting postconviction DNA testing require production of the underlying data once testing is ordered and completed. The Court affirmed denial of Duckett’s public-records requests for the lab’s testing process and protocols and remanded for provision of the underlying data, with an evidentiary hearing if disputes over scope arise.

The Court of Appeal reversed two convictions and affirmed one from defendant Wayne Hansen Hsiung’s convictions arising from “open rescue” animal-rights protests at Sonoma County poultry farms. The court held the trial court erred by barring a mistake-of-law defense based on defendant’s good-faith (though mistaken) reliance on legal advice that a necessity justification made trespass lawful for rescuing or treating suffering animals; that defect required reversal of the conspiracy count and one trespass count and remand for further proceedings. The court rejected challenges to Penal Code section 31 and to section 602(o) and affirmed the remaining conviction.

The Court of Appeal reversed in part and affirmed in part. After a 2018 marital dissolution divided a retirement asset, the parties signed a stipulation dividing the remaining proceeds. In 2020 the wife (Nishida) sued the husband (Kamoda) in civil court for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging he misrepresented his employment status to induce the stipulation. The civil court transferred the case to family court, which dismissed as time-barred and denied leave to amend; the Court of Appeal held the dismissal and denial of leave were erroneous because the complaint was timely under Family Code section 2122(a) and transfer resolved any jurisdictional problem. The court affirmed the civil court’s grant of relief from default to Kamoda under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).

The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence of Cary Anthony Stayner for the murders of Carole Sund, her daughters’ friend Silvina Pelosso, and 15-year-old Juli Sund, and related kidnapping. After a jury convicted Stayner of three counts of murder and one count of kidnapping, found multiple special circumstance allegations true, found him sane, and the jury fixed penalty at death, the trial court denied motions for new trial and sentence modification. The high court reviewed guilt, sanity, and penalty-phase claims and concluded the record did not establish reversible error, affirming the judgment in full.

The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded the case of Robert Lopez, convicted in 2007 of murder and related offenses, for further proceedings under Penal Code section 1172.6 (Senate Bill 1437/775). The trial court had denied his resentencing petition after an evidentiary hearing; the Court of Appeal affirmed on the ground Lopez forfeited his instructional-ambiguity claim by not raising it on direct appeal. The Supreme Court held that section 1172.6 does not categorically bar petitions based on jury instruction ambiguity that may have permitted conviction by imputed malice, and ordered the appellate court to consider Lopez’s claims on the merits.

The California Supreme Court held that trial courts may order pretrial detention of noncapital defendants only in the specific circumstances described by article I, section 12 (subdivisions (b) and (c)) of the California Constitution. Where detention is not authorized under section 12, a court may condition release on monetary bail only after an individualized assessment and must set bail in an amount that is reasonable and generally attainable given the defendant’s circumstances. The decision reconciles section 12 with article I, section 28(f)(3), reaffirming that public and victim safety remain primary considerations but do not expand the categories of offenses subject to detention.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Wayne Bridges’s application for discretionary review of a DeKalb County Magistrate Court dispossessory judgment because the court lacked jurisdiction. Georgia law requires that appeals from magistrate court dispossessory judgments be filed within seven days; Bridges filed his application 33 days after the magistrate court’s March 6, 2026 judgment. Because the statutory appeal period expired, the Court declined to transfer the matter to the state or superior court and dismissed the application as untimely.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Steven Donald Lemery’s appeal from the trial court’s February 10, 2026 denial of his extraordinary motion for new trial. The court found it lacked jurisdiction because Lemery’s notice of appeal was filed 41 days after the order and therefore untimely under OCGA § 5-6-38(a), and because appeals from denials of extraordinary motions for new trial must proceed by discretionary appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(7). Because both timeliness and the required procedural route were lacking, the Court dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Madelene Kinsler’s direct appeal from a superior court judgment favoring BW Links Owner, LLC in a dispossessory proceeding because Kinsler did not follow the mandatory discretionary-appeal procedure for superior-court reviews of magistrate-court orders. The court explained that under Georgia law an application for discretionary appeal is required and that compliance is jurisdictional, so the Court of Appeals lacked authority to consider the merits and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Keola Pasteure’s appeal of a trial-court summary judgment in favor of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company because the notice of appeal was filed more than eight months after the July 2025 order. Under Georgia law, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order. Because Pasteure did not file within that statutory period, the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits.