Carleton E. Boyce, III v. State of Florida
Docket 6D2024-2595
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Florida
- Court
- District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Docket
- 6D2024-2595
Appeal from a criminal conviction or sentence in the Circuit Court for Polk County
Summary
The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Polk County in the criminal case of Carleton E. Boyce, III. The appeal was briefed and argued by the public defender and the state; the district court issued a per curiam opinion, announcing affirmation without published opinion or extended discussion. The panel (Stargel, White, and Mize, JJ.) concurred. No separate analysis, holdings, or reasons are provided in the short decision beyond the affirmance.
Issue Decided
- Whether the circuit court's judgment in the underlying criminal case should be reversed.
Court's Reasoning
The opinion is a short per curiam affirmance and does not state the court's reasoning in the published text. By issuing a per curiam "AFFIRMED," the panel determined the appellant's contentions lacked sufficient merit to warrant reversal or further relief.
Parties
- Appellant
- Carleton E. Boyce, III
- Appellee
- State of Florida
- Judge
- Cassandra L. Denmark
- Attorney
- Blair Allen, Public Defender
- Attorney
- Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public Defender
- Attorney
- James Uthmeier, Attorney General
- Attorney
- William A. Leto, Assistant Attorney General
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-28
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider rehearing motion
The appellant may file a motion for rehearing in the district court within the timeframe allowed to request the court reconsider its per curiam affirmance.
- 2
Evaluate petition for review
If rehearing is denied, the appellant should consult counsel about whether to seek discretionary review in the Florida Supreme Court and whether the case presents a qualifying legal question or conflict.
- 3
Proceed with enforcement of judgment
If no further review is sought or available, the State may proceed with implementation of the circuit court's judgment, and the appellant should consult counsel about post-conviction options if appropriate.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, meaning it found no reversible error that would change the outcome of the criminal case.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The decision affects the appellant, Carleton E. Boyce, III, and the State of Florida; it leaves the circuit court's judgment intact.
- Does the opinion explain why the court affirmed?
- No. This is a brief per curiam affirmance that does not include a written explanation of the court's reasoning in the published entry.
- Can this be appealed further?
- Potential further review may be available by petitioning the Florida Supreme Court, but that would depend on whether the case meets criteria for discretionary review such as a conflict of law or a significant question of law.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2024-2595
Lower Tribunal No. 2021-CF-003863
_____________________________
CARLETON E. BOYCE, III,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County.
Cassandra L. Denmark, Judge.
April 28, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
STARGEL, WHITE and MIZE, JJ., concur.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow,
for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William A. Leto, Assistant
Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED