What did the court decide?

The appellate panel affirmed the circuit court's decision and denied the relief Sussman sought on appeal.

Who is affected by this decision?

The decision affects the appellant, David Charles Sussman, and the named appellees (the assistant state attorney, the circuit judge, and the assistant attorney general).

Why is there no detailed explanation?

The court issued a short per curiam opinion with a one-word disposition of 'AFFIRMED,' which means the panel found no reversible error and chose not to publish a written opinion explaining its analysis.

Can this decision be challenged further?

Potential next steps include filing timely and authorized motions under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331; other further appeals would depend on available procedural avenues and timing.

David Charles Sussman v. Dustin M. Havens, Assistant State Attorney, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Kathryn D. Weston, Circuit Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit and Douglas Squire, Assistant Attorney General

Docket 5D2024-2924

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

OtherAffirmed

Filed: Apr 28, 2026 · 3 days ago
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Other
Disposition: Affirmed
Docket: 5D2024-2924

Appeal from a decision of the Circuit Court for Volusia County (Randell H. Rowe, III, Judge).

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a pro se appeal by David Charles Sussman. The appeal challenged actions involving the Assistant State Attorney, a circuit judge, and the Assistant Attorney General. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the circuit court without published opinion or extended reasoning. The opinion is final subject to timely authorized post-judgment motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

Issue Decided

Whether the circuit court's decision should be reversed as raised in David Charles Sussman's pro se appeal.

Court's Reasoning

The court issued a per curiam affirmation without an opinion, indicating the panel found no reversible error in the circuit court's ruling. Because the opinion contains no written analysis, the appellate court relied on the record and concluded the lower court's decision should stand. The brief disposition signals the court determined the appellant's arguments did not warrant reversal.

Parties

Appellant: David Charles Sussman
Appellee: Dustin M. Havens, Assistant State Attorney, Seventh Judicial Circuit
Appellee: Kathryn D. Weston, Circuit Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit
Appellee: Douglas Squire, Assistant Attorney General
Judge: Randell H. Rowe, III

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-28

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider post-judgment motions
If the appellant believes an error remains, he may file a timely motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 (motion for rehearing) or 9.331 (motion for rehearing en banc) as allowed.
2
Consult an attorney
Sussman should consult counsel to evaluate grounds for rehearing or further review and to ensure any filings meet procedural and timing requirements.
3
Review the trial record
Examine the circuit court record and the appellate briefs to identify any preserved issues that could support a motion for rehearing or further appeal.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate panel affirmed the circuit court's decision and denied the relief Sussman sought on appeal.
Who is affected by this decision?: The decision affects the appellant, David Charles Sussman, and the named appellees (the assistant state attorney, the circuit judge, and the assistant attorney general).
Why is there no detailed explanation?: The court issued a short per curiam opinion with a one-word disposition of 'AFFIRMED,' which means the panel found no reversible error and chose not to publish a written opinion explaining its analysis.
Can this decision be challenged further?: Potential next steps include filing timely and authorized motions under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331; other further appeals would depend on available procedural avenues and timing.

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. 5D2024-2924
                 LT Case No. 2024-11469-CIDL
                 _____________________________

DAVID CHARLES SUSSMAN,

    Appellant,

    v.

DUSTIN M. HAVENS, ASSISTANT
STATE ATTORNEY, SEVENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, KATHRYN D.
WESTON, CIRCUIT JUDGE,
SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT and
DOUGLAS SQUIRE, ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL,

    Appellees.
                 _____________________________


On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County.
Randell H. Rowe, III, Judge.

David Charles Sussman, Arcadia, pro se.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and William H. Stafford, III,
Special Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellees, Kathryn D. Weston,
Circuit Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit and Douglas Squire,
Assistant Attorney General.

R.J. Larizza, State Attorney, and Abraham C. McKinnon,
Assistant State Attorney, Daytona Beach, for Appellee, Dustin M.
Havens, Assistant State Attorney, Seventh Judicial Circuit.
                        April 28, 2026

PER CURIAM.

    AFFIRMED.


MAKAR, SOUD, and KILBANE, JJ., concur.

                _____________________________

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




                              2