What did the appeals court decide?

The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, meaning it found no reversible error and left the lower-court decision in place.

Who is affected by this decision?

Appellant Carmelo Cruz and the State of Florida are directly affected; Cruz's challenge to the conviction or sentence remains unsuccessful at this appellate level.

Can this decision be changed?

The decision is not final until the time for authorized post-judgment motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 expires; Cruz may file those motions or seek further review to the extent permitted.

Why didn't the court explain its reasoning?

The court entered a per curiam affirmance without an opinion, indicating the panel concluded the record did not show reversible error and a written opinion was unnecessary.

Carmelo Cruz v. State of Florida

Docket 5D2024-0789

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal AppealAffirmed

Filed: Apr 16, 2026 · 2 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Disposition: Affirmed
Docket: 5D2024-0789

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County in a criminal case

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in a criminal case. Appellant Carmelo Cruz appealed a Volusia County criminal matter, but the appellate panel (per curiam) found no reversible error and denied relief. The court issued a brief order affirming the lower court's judgment without opinion; three judges concurred. The opinion notes that the decision is not final until the time for certain authorized post-judgment motions expires.

Issue Decided

Whether the circuit court's judgment in Carmelo Cruz's criminal case should be reversed on appeal

Court's Reasoning

The court issued a per curiam affirmance, indicating it found no reversible error in the lower court's proceedings or judgment. Because the opinion contains no extended analysis, the affirmance rests on the panel's determination that the record did not warrant reversal. The concurrence of three judges accompanies the brief affirmance.

Parties

Appellant: Carmelo Cruz
Appellee: State of Florida
Judge: Dawn D. Nichols
Attorney: Matthew J. Metz
Attorney: Susan A. Fagan
Attorney: James Uthmeier
Attorney: Marissa V. Giles

Key Dates

Appellate decision: 2026-04-16

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider filing authorized post-judgment motions
If applicable, the appellant should timely file motions under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 to seek rehearing or certification before the decision becomes final.
2
Consult appellate counsel
Appellant should consult the public defender or private appellate counsel to evaluate grounds for further review or to confirm deadlines and procedural options.
3
Prepare for any required further proceedings
If the decision is final and the conviction stands, the appellant should consult counsel about sentencing, postconviction relief options, or collateral remedies as appropriate.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the appeals court decide?: The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, meaning it found no reversible error and left the lower-court decision in place.
Who is affected by this decision?: Appellant Carmelo Cruz and the State of Florida are directly affected; Cruz's challenge to the conviction or sentence remains unsuccessful at this appellate level.
Can this decision be changed?: The decision is not final until the time for authorized post-judgment motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 expires; Cruz may file those motions or seek further review to the extent permitted.
Why didn't the court explain its reasoning?: The court entered a per curiam affirmance without an opinion, indicating the panel concluded the record did not show reversible error and a written opinion was unnecessary.

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

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D2024-0789
                 LT Case No. 2022-102185-CFDL
                  ____________________________

CARMELO CRUZ,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________


On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County.
Dawn D. Nichols, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan,
Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Carmelo Cruz, Bowling Green, pro se.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marissa
V. Giles, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.


                       April 16, 2026


PER CURIAM.

    AFFIRMED.
MAKAR, LAMBERT, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

               _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________




                             2