Live courthouse data across 10 states. Pro users get alerted instantly on every filing. Get started

Peterson v. Department of Corrections

Docket 1D2024-3127

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

OtherAffirmed
Filed
Jurisdiction
Florida
Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type
Opinion
Case type
Other
Disposition
Affirmed
Docket
1D2024-3127

Appeal from a circuit court decision in Leon County reviewing action involving the Florida Department of Corrections.

Summary

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed Martin Peterson's appeal of a decision entered by the Leon County Circuit Court involving the Florida Department of Corrections. The appellate panel issued a short per curiam opinion on May 5, 2026, unanimously concluding that the lower court's judgment should be upheld. The opinion contains a single-line disposition, affirming the circuit court's ruling, with all three judges concurring. No additional reasoning or factual background is provided in the published entry.

Issue Decided

  • Whether the circuit court's judgment involving appellant Martin Peterson and the Florida Department of Corrections should be reversed.

Court's Reasoning

The opinion is a short per curiam affirmance and does not include substantive reasoning or analysis; the panel summarily affirmed the lower court's judgment and all three judges concurred. Because no legal explanation is included in the published entry, the court's underlying rationale is not provided in this document.

Parties

Appellant
Martin Peterson
Appellee
Florida Department of Corrections
Judge
Jonathan E. Sjostrom
Attorney
Marie A. Mattox
Attorney
Ashley N. Richardson
Attorney
Christine L. Wolfe

Key Dates

Decision date
2026-05-05

What You Should Do Next

  1. 1

    Consider filing post-judgment motions

    If timely and authorized, the appellant can evaluate filing motions under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 as noted in the opinion to seek rehearing or clarification.

  2. 2

    Consult appellate counsel about further review

    Discuss with counsel whether to seek discretionary review by the Florida Supreme Court or pursue any remaining legal options given the lack of published reasoning.

  3. 3

    Comply with the underlying judgment

    Unless a timely appellate motion or further review is pursued, parties should prepare to comply with the circuit court's judgment that remains affirmed.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?
The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision; the appeal was unsuccessful.
Who is affected by this decision?
The immediate parties are appellant Martin Peterson and the Florida Department of Corrections; the decision leaves the lower-court ruling in place.
Why did the court rule this way?
The published entry is a brief per curiam affirmance and does not explain the court's legal reasoning or factual analysis.
Can this be appealed further?
A further appeal to the Florida Supreme Court might be possible in limited circumstances, but the entry notes the decision is not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motions under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

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
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                        No. 1D2024-3127
                 _____________________________

MARTIN PETERSON,

    Appellant,

    v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________


On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.
Jonathan E. Sjostrom, Judge.

                         May 5, 2026


PER CURIAM.

    AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROWE and LONG, JJ., concur.

                 _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________
Marie A. Mattox and Ashley N. Richardson of Marie A. Mattox,
P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Christine L. Wolfe, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for
Appellee.




                              2