text:
    Chrystal POWELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3318
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 06, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    F. A., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. INTEREST OF: F. A., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3256
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 03, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.

Denied.


text:
    HOOSIER PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOC., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3203
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    September 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Guatam BHATIA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-1652
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    September 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    A. O., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-2080
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    September 29, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    E. P., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-2333
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    September 29, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Katherine YOUNG, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Sheri GALVEZ, Personally and/or in her capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of Bonnie Lynn Hower, and/or John or Jane Doe, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-2170
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    September 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    John ANTOINE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-2222
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    September 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Jennifer Canino CRUZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, o/b/o Edgardo Cruz, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-2344
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    OCTOBER 06, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Scott R. SCHAMING & Lisa M. Schaming, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. SPEELER FOUNDATIONS, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D16-3956
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Kristin POPOWSKI, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D16-2083
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    September 26, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.

Granted.


text:
    Gary L. WOODROFFE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE o/b/o Lynn Lotsey Mahan, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-0066
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    September 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    M.B., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-2800
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    R. G. and J. G., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D16-4620
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    September 29, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Oscar Dennis HERNANDEZ, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Toni Lynne SEXTON, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3278
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    September 27, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Malcolm BADGERS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3223
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    August 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Charles FIGUEROA-HENRIQUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-1017
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Pedro Armando WALTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-2089
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    E. Y., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3550
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 11, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Christina PAYLAN, M.D., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Timothy J. FITZGERALD, Esq., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3260
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    August 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Vincent DANIEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D14-5247
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ronald SOLORZANO, DOC# S15106, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case Nos. 2D15-3810
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    TRUST NO. 9150 DATED MARCH 23, 2012 LAND TRUST SERVICE CORPORATION as Trustee, Appellant, v. M & T BANK, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D15-4212
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert GOODIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D15-4261
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Matthew L. BELL and Darla F. Bell, Appellants, v. STATE FARM BANK, F.S.B., Appellees.
    Case No. 2D16-2223
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Corey P. CONKLIN, a/k/a Corey Patrick Conklin, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-2674
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher Lee NICHOLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1030
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Scottie Lee WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1355
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Antonio LONG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1377
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Branden T. SANDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-184
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Theodore PARNELL, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1917
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Eugene HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-3185
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Eugene HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-351
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James Hayes GRANT, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY and Saddlebag Lake Owners Association, Inc., Appellees.
    Case No. 2D17-452
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Shannon V. WHITFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-585
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joseph W. HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-815
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Santino SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-938
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kadeem DAVIS, DOC# T86335, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case Nos. 2D16-2379 2D16-2456
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Darius Duquan BUSSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-3198
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Stanley Ray HOWARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-5054
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Terry Lynn BRADY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-5076
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Steven C. HEISER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-5203
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Alexander R. RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-534
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kevin SCOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-617
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Chas Adam PAPPAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1025
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tajhon Boderick WILSON, doc #R21310, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1387
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    David HALL, DOC #181555, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1494
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    ADVANTAGE LIMOUSINE, LLC, Appellant, v. Keith M. SIMMONS, II; Siminole Transportation, Inc.; Theodore J. Koutsos; and Olympus Limo, Inc., Appellees.
    Case No. 2D17-1600
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Angel SANCHEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1772
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Alfredo GOMEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1960
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Phillip A. DANIEL, DOC# T23749, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-2134
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert RIOS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-2301
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    KEGLER BROWN HILL & RITTER CO., L.P.A., Appellant, v. Virginia N. BERNET and Charles Schwab Trust Company of Delaware, as Trustee of the James A. Bernet 8/9/01 Trust fbo Virginia N. Bernet, Appellees.
    Case No. 2D17-2747
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    C.M.D., Petitioner, v. K.R.B., Respondent.
    Case Nos. 2D17-2978
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Joe Andrew KUMLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1228
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Armen TAVY, Appellant, v. Joseph Della VECCHIA, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1534
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Donald LAMORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-2305
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sherrard SIMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1553
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Henry B. LOWE, Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Successor By Merger to Bac Home Loans Servicing, L.P. f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P., Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1767
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Andrew L. BROWN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-2839; CASE NO.: 2D17-2041
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    September 26, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    Roderick L. CLARK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-4145
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Diane C. SULLIVAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-4076
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 19, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Certiorari is dismissed.


text:
    Marcus B. HARRIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE Of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3811
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 11, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Michael E. WATTS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3857
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 5, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Christopher BRADLEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Michael J. SCOTT, Sheriff, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3872
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Habeas corpus is granted.


text:
    Fernando GONZALEZ-ROMERO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3896
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 11, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mandamus is denied.


text:
    Timothy Justin TACY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3890
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 09, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Matthew Christopher SERRET, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3936
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 09, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Andrew CORPUS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-0409
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Felix Jesus IBARRA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Chad CHRONISTER, Sheriff of Hillsborough County, Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3976
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Phillip STOKER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Susan BENTON, Sheriff, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D16-5523
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    William David VANCE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3641
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    September 25, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    J.L.C., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Joseph SEEBER, Superintendent, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3188
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 30, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Anthony Charles EVANS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Alisha EVANS, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-0742
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 26, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Thaddeus Chaylon MARTIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-0619
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed October 18, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Love MUSELAIRE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1872
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed October 11, 2017.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher MYLES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1238
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed November 29, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Armon EVERETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2193
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed November 22, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Leroy MARTIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D16-2780
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed November 22, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Afelix DESIR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D15-741
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed October 18, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Quintell A. BOWENS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2252
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed December 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Juan Carlos PORTIELES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D16-668
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed November 29, 2017.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Hector RIVAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2241
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed November 29, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mairim HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2221
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed November 29, 2017.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Enrique GARCIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2183
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed December 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Antonio V. FOUNTAIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1791
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed December 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Corey MOORE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1210
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed December 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James T. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-0017
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed December 13, 2017.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kenny DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D16-465
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed December 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Harold CABRERA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2259
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed December 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Anthony DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2248
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed December 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    N.R., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1207
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed December 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kevin D. HARVEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2430
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed December 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joaquin Leonard DUARTE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2375
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed December 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Erickson MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1444
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed December 20, 2017.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Darryl WALKER, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0254
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    FEBRUARY 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied as moot.


text:
    D.L., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1938
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 31, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Z.D., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1853
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 31, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.S., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1926
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 31, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A. S., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1252
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 31, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert DRAGO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-199
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 15, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Daniel CAMACHO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3306
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 15, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael PAUL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2523
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 17, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-249
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [December 14, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Andrew DURANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Nos. 4D16-3726 4D16-3875
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 15, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Srinath SUBRAMANIAN, Appellant, v. Veena SUBRAMANIAN, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-4262
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 15, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Daniel T. PALCU, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D10-4514
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    February 15, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Patrick MICKLEWHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3417
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 15, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sebastian Lee HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-1431
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 22, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Fred Clayton TIMS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-2859
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 22, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Vance Lee GAVIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-2992
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 22, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Narcius BRUNO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3322
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 22, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Marco SAYAN and Ursula Haltenhof, Appellants, v. SPACE COAST CREDIT UNION, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3925
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 22, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    T.Y., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Nos. 4D16-3981 4D16-4024 4D16-4026 4D16-4027
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 22, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Appellee.
    No. 4D16-4018
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 22, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Matt GIANCOLA, Jimmie Herndon, Joe Herndon, Paul Jacquin, Sr., Paul Jacquin, Jr., Donnie Rolison and Lawrence Vickers, Being members of a Florida Partnership known as El Rancho, Appellants, v. Bryan VANLANDINGHAM, El Rancho, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Natalie Vanlandingham, Appellees.
    No. 4D16-4215
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 22, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    AMC PUBLISHING, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellant, v. HORIZON PUBLISHING, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, Appellee.
    Nos. 4D16-4352 4D17-1486
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 22, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Cedric J. JENKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-68
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 22, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Charles BARLOW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-129
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 22, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Trenton Alan BROERS, Appellant, v. Courtney Elizabeth MILLER, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-308
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [March 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rebekah WERTH, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, CIRCUIT 19 MARTIN, UNIT 88510, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-0183
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 22, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Yigal GAZIT, Appellant, v. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Successor by Merger to Bankatlantic, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-319
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 22, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ruba Kumar SELVARAJ, Appellant, v. Celine Shakila SELVARAJ, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-591
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 22, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Xaun FLETCHER, Appellant, v. Karen Brooks FLETCHER, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-4039
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [March 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Frank FERRANTE and Rosanne Ricard, Appellants, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-4269
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [March 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    David W. ROBERTS and Royal Palm Properties, LLC, Appellants, v. CHRISTIE'S GREAT ESTATES, INC., n/k/a Christie's International Real Estate, Inc. a Florida Corporation; Premier Estate Properties, Inc. ; Gerald P. Liguori; Carmen N. D'Angelo, Jr.; Joseph G. Liguori; Rick S. Felberbaum, Individually; and Felberbaum & Associates, P.A., a Florida Professional Association, Appellees.
    No. 4D16-2768
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [March 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lina Nickie DUNKLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-1525
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Craig R. ZOBEL, Appellant, v. Ann M. ZOBEL, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3854
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Terry Lamarr LEWIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-2966
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 25, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Scott HARTMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2206
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    January 2, 2018 Rehearing Denied February 8, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Teresa A. GRODZKI, Appellant, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-2570
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Eric V. SCHREIBER, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-3705
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Willie J. BARNEY and Earnestine W. Munson a/k/a Earnestine W. Barney, Appellants, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee FOR WAMU MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES FOR WMALT 2006-AW9 TRUST, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D15-3329
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    John Peterson JANVIER, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, DIVISION OF LICENSING, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2106
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Frank ADAMS, Appellant, v. K. Mark JOHNSON as Managing Attorney for the State Attorney's Office, Norma Kay Wendt as Division Chief of the Public Defender's Office and State of Florida, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-1094
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ricky B. MYERS, Appellant, v. DRS. BAKER AND GILMOUR, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Baker-Gilmour Cardiovascular Institute, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-705
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Helga HUFFMAN, Appellant, v. COMMERCE WEST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-3692
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Letticia CONCEPCION, Appellant, v. VENTURES TRUST 2013-I-H-R BY MCM CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, AJX Mortgage Trust I, A Delaware Trust, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Trustee, et al., Appellees.
    Case No. 5D16-3084
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    DO SAOPAULO, INC., Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee FOR BANC OF AMERICA ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-7 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-7, et al., Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-3472
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jennifer BRONZINO, Appellant, v. Timothy J. BRONZINO, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3175
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Bobby CULLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1218
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Bryan A. BLAYLOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3941
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Benjamin R. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and State of Florida, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-2148
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ronald MCKEEHAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3520
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    John W. MURRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2500
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Devante REED, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2505
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Reggie Jerome TATE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-653
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Charles CASEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3254
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Stephen Cody HAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-4391
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Quinton STOUTMIRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2992
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Anthony GILGREASE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-58
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Quentin MCCRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-2335
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Steve Travis MADAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-106
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Bradley WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3843
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Anthony R. FREGENTI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1433
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Leondrae ENGLISH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-935
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Shaun BATTLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-763
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Luis GONZALEZ-NIEVES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-91
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Darius GRAYSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2751
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    William GRAVES, III, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and State of Florida, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-1960
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Daniel ROBIDA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1698
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ambrose SANTOS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2347
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 3, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Terrance L. ANTHONY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3409
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jamir W. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3143
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Courtney Deshon BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2907
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Dwight David JORDAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2883
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Salvador ANTUNEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3832
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Craig JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3510
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    Christopher T. DEAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D14-681
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 10, 2018]
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul E. Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale Surber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
    ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT
   Per Curiam.

Pursuant to the mandate from the Supreme Court in Dean v. State , 230 So.3d 420 (Fla. 2017), we affirm appellant's convictions and remand for resentencing.

Gross, Damoorgian and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.


text:
    PENNYMAC CORP., Appellant, v. OCEAN PLACE AT SILVER BEACH ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida Not for Profit Corporation; and FPR Force, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Appellees.
    No. 4D17-452
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 10, 2018]
    Alexzander D. Gonano of Gonano & Harrell, Fort Pierce, and Avri S. Ben-Hamo and Steven B. Greenfield of Aldridge & Pite, LLP, Boca Raton, for appellant.
    Christopher B. Hopkins of McDonald Hopkins, LLC, West Palm Beach, and Harold B. Klite Truppman and Eli L. Samet of Harold B. Klite Truppman, P.A. Miami, for appellee, FPR Force, LLC.
   Per Curiam.

Pennymac appeals the circuit court's order denying its "petition for relief from order appointing receiver and motion for rehearing." Pennymac was served with process in the underlying lawsuit and was later served with a post-judgment motion to establish equitable lien. A hearing was held on the post-judgment motion, but Pennymac did not appear. Pennymac's first appearance in the lawsuit did not occur until it sought relief from the final post-judgment order at issue. Therefore, Pennymac waived its arguments by failing to contest the relief sought prior to issuance of the final order. Due to Pennymac's waiver, we need not address the merits of the issues it raises on appeal and specifically decline to do so.

Affirmed.

Warner, Conner and Kuntz, JJ., concur.


author: Gross, J.

text:
    Dr. An Q. LE, Individually, Dallas Dentistry Associates, P.C., North Dallas Dentistry Associates, P.C., North Richardson Dentistry Associates, P.C., and Plano Dentistry Associates, P.C., Appellants, v. TRALONGO, LLC, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-1325
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 14, 2018]
    Bradford J. Beilly and John Strohsahl of Beilly & Strohsahl, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
    Robert M. Einhorn, Kaari Gagnon and Beshoy Rizk of Zarco Einhorn Salkowski & Brito, P.A., Miami, for appellee.
   Gross, J.

Dr. An Q. Le and his four corporate dental practices appeal a non-final order denying their motions to dismiss an amended complaint that alleges breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relationships. The defendants, who are located in Texas, sought dismissal based upon lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The trial court has personal jurisdiction because the defendants breached a contractual provision they were required to perform in Florida and they have sufficient minimum contacts with the state. But, because the contracts for two of the dental clinics provide for venue in Georgia, we reverse in part.

In December 2013, Dr. Le signed a Territory Agreement merging his dental practice (Dallas Dentistry Associates, P.C.) into the Tralongo System. Tralongo, LLC provides management, accounting, marketing, acquisition, and other services to dental practices. In exchange for management and administrative services, the clinic pays Tralongo a monthly service fee, which is a percentage of the clinic's gross receipts. The Territory Agreement also includes a buyout provision allowing Tralongo to purchase a clinic at any time as provided in each Clinic Agreement.

Le purchased three additional dental practices in Texas (North Richardson Dentistry Associates, P.C., North Dallas Dentistry Associates, P.C., and Plano Dentistry Associates, P.C.), and each signed Clinic Agreements with Tralongo.

Pursuant to the Clinic Agreements, Tralongo provided the dental offices various administrative and accounting services such as payroll services, insurance verification for new patients, negotiating fees for services with insurance companies, purchasing clinical supplies, paying vendors, recording daily deposit reports, reconciling accounts, and providing accounting reports.

When the parties signed the Territory Agreement and initial Dallas Clinic Agreement, Tralongo was a Georgia corporation. Tralongo subsequently opened an office in Davie, and the office moved to Sunrise, Florida. Tralongo has provided services to the defendants from Florida since October 2013. Tralongo maintained a Georgia office, but at the time of the alleged breach all services to the clinics were provided from the Sunrise office, and the clinics had regular e-mail communication with the Sunrise office.

Some initial payments for services were made by checks sent to Tralongo's Georgia office. Subsequent payments were made by the Tralongo Sunrise office withdrawing money from the clinics' bank accounts or by withholding funds from money that Tralongo collected on behalf of the clinics.

In September 2016, after Tralongo sought to exercise the buyout option for two clinics, Le and the clinics removed Tralongo's access to their bank accounts and notified Tralongo that they were transitioning off its services.

Tralongo filed an amended complaint against Le and the clinics alleging tortious interference with contractual relationships and breach of contract for terminating without cause, inducing other members of the network to wrongfully terminate their contracts with Tralongo, preventing Tralongo from exercising the buyout option, and failing to pay monthly service fees.

Le and the clinics moved to dismiss arguing that the trial court does not have personal jurisdiction because the agreements did not require them to perform any act in Florida and they do not have sufficient minimum contacts with this state. In a supplemental motion, defendants also argued that claims against two clinics were improperly brought in Broward County based upon the forum selection clauses in their Clinic Agreements. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motions.

A two-step analysis is used to determine whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais , 554 So.2d 499, 502 (Fla. 1989). First, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to fall within the scope of the long arm statute, section 48.193, Florida Statutes, and if so, the court must next determine whether sufficient minimum contacts are demonstrated to satisfy due process. 554 So.2d at 502.

Tralongo's amended complaint alleges that the trial court has personal jurisdiction over the Texas defendants pursuant to section 48.193(1)(a)(7) because they failed to pay monthly support fees to Tralongo in Florida. This subsection provides for personal jurisdiction in Florida if the party "breach[ed] a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required to by the contract to be performed in the state." § 48.193(1)(a)(7), Fla. Stat. (2016).

The agreements are silent as to where the clinics were required to make payments. But, the parties' course of dealings can fill in gaps in the express terms of a contract. See , e.g. , Scott v. Rolling Hills Place, Inc. , 688 So.2d 937, 939 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) ("Although the contract was silent as to the method of payment, the actions of the parties in making interim payments on the submission of invoices became a term of the contract."); see also NCP Lake Power v. Fla. Power Corp. , 781 So.2d 531, 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (recognizing that customary practices can " 'annex incidents to a written contract' regarding matters to which the contract is silent"). Tralongo was acting on defendants' behalf when it paid itself in Florida. These payments were continuously and exclusively made to Florida for almost a year before the defendants terminated the agreements.

Tralongo also demonstrated that the defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida. In order to satisfy due process it is generally not enough for a non-resident defendant to contract with a Florida resident.

Metnick & Levy, P.A. v. Seuling , 123 So.3d 639, 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). But, "the exercise of jurisdiction may be proper where [the] out-of-state defendant enters into a contract with a forum-state party 'for substantial services to be performed in Florida.' " Id. (quoting EOS Transport Inc. v. Agri-Source Fuels LLC , 37 So.3d 349, 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ). Here, the clinics regularly exchanged information with Tralongo's Florida office so that Tralongo could provide administrative and accounting services to the clinics. The Florida office had access to the clinics' daily reports and bank accounts to balance the clinics' books and pay vendors. The Florida office regularly sent the clinics reports and invoices.

Through technology, business tasks that were once performed on site, can now be completed at a distance. Personal jurisdiction evolves accordingly. The Texas defendants could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in Florida where they have had systematic and continuous contact with a Florida business that provides office management and accounting services to help run the Texas clinics. By contracting for the performance of extensive services in Florida, the Texas defendants engaged in conduct "purposefully directed toward" Florida. Asahi Metal Industry, Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, Solano Cty. , 480 U.S. 102, 112, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987) (O'Connor, J.). Maintenance of the suit in this state, therefore, does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) ).

The requirements for personal jurisdiction are satisfied, but we agree with appellants that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss as to North Richardson Dentistry Associates and North Dallas Dentistry Associates. The Clinic Agreements for these defendants included forum selection clauses requiring that any action be brought in Atlanta, Georgia. Mandatory forum selection clauses should be enforced. Espresso Disposition Corp. 1 v. Santana Sales & Mktg. Group, Inc. , 105 So.3d 592, 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). The separate choices of law provision in the Agreements does not override the unambiguous forum selection clause.

Accordingly, the order denying appellants' motions to dismiss is reversed in part and remanded for the trial court to grant the motions as to North Richardson Dentistry Associates and North Dallas Dentistry Associates.

Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part .

Taylor and Forst, JJ., concur.


text:
    Rachel SHELSWELL, Appellant, v. Pierre BOURDEAU, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-174
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 21, 2018]
    Brian J. Glick of Glick Law Firm, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.
    W. Tucker Craig and Scott C. Cochran of Billing, Cochran, Lyles, Mauro & Ramsey, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

Appellant Rachel Shelswell appeals a final order effectively dismissing her negligence suit with prejudice due to her prior counsel's failure to appear at a case management conference. Shelswell argues that her counsel's failure to appear was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the final order was deficient for failing to include an express finding that her counsel's failure to appear was willful and contumacious. We reject both arguments on appeal and affirm.

It is well-settled that a final order dismissing a case with prejudice, because counsel failed to attend a case management conference, must include a factual finding that the failure to attend was "willful, deliberate, or contumacious, rather than an act of negligence or inexperience." Kozel v. Ostendorf , 629 So.2d 817, 818 (Fla. 1993) ; see also Kaufman ex rel. Yelnick v. FS Tenant Pool III Tr. , 87 So.3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ("Failure to include a finding of such willful and contumacious behavior in its order dismissing the case with prejudice is an abuse of discretion by the trial court."). The final order in this case was deficient as it failed to address the Kozel factors.

However, it is equally "well settled that the rule of preservation applies to the improper dismissal of a complaint with prejudice." Vorbeck v. Betancourt , 107 So.3d 1142, 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). In Bank of America, N.A. v. Ribaudo , 199 So.3d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), we refused to reverse a final order that failed to address the necessary Kozel factors because the appellant bank "did not raise [the issue] at the hearing on the motion to dismiss or by subsequently filing a motion for rehearing or reconsideration." Id. at 409 ; see also Gozzo Dev., Inc. v. Prof'l Roofing Contractors, Inc. , 211 So.3d 145, 146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (Lee, J., concurring) ("[A]ppellant cannot now be heard to complain about the trial court's not making findings pursuant to Kozel when appellant failed to request the trial court to do so."); Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Sandhill , 202 So.3d 944, 945 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ("[I]n order to preserve as error the failure of the trial court to set forth its Kozel analysis in the order of dismissal, the Appellant was obligated to bring the matter to the trial court's attention by filing a timely motion for rehearing or clarification with a specific request for inclusion of the Kozel factor analysis in an amended order.").

Here, Shelswell, by way of her replacement trial attorney, did not raise the Kozel issue at any point in the proceedings below, such as through a motion for rehearing or clarification filed within fifteen days of the trial court's order. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(b). Instead, Shelswell's counsel filed an appeal with this Court and then failed to take the opportunity to move for relinquishment of jurisdiction to the trial court. In this appeal, we are urged to consider an affidavit purporting to excuse the initial counsel's failure to attend the case management conference. But, because the document "was never submitted to the trial court and is not part of the record, its inclusion in the appendix was improper." Sandefur v. RVS Capital, LLC , 183 So.3d 1258, 1260 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

"In the interest of an efficient judicial system and in the interest of clients, it is essential that attorneys adhere to filing deadlines and other procedural requirements." Kozel , 629 So.2d at 818. By failing to first attend the case management conference, and then failing to file a motion for rehearing or clarification or relinquishment, Shelswell's attorneys' conduct ran contrary to the interests of their client, a minor child who had been involved in a car accident. Thus, as in Ribaudo , "despite the trial court's clear errors, we are unable to address them on appeal." Ribaudo , 199 So.3d at 409. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order of dismissal.

Affirmed .

Taylor, Forst and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.


author: KUNTZ, J.

text:
    ROLLS-ROYCE, PLC, a foreign profit corporation, Appellant, v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Rolls-Royce Corporation, a foreign corporation, Rolls-Royce North America, Inc., a foreign profit corporation, IAE International Aero Engines AG, a foreign profit entity, Pratt & Whitney, a division of United Technologies Corporation, a foreign profit corporation, Appellees.
    No. 4D17-1215
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 28, 2018]
    Stephanie G. Kolman, J. Thompson Thornton, and Clayton W. Thornton of Clyde & Co US, LLP, Miami, for appellant.
    Eric D. Griffin, Jr. and Juan R. Serrano of Griffin & Serrano, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Spirit Airlines, Inc.
    ON MOTION FOR REHEARING, MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC AND REQUEST FOR WRITTEN OPINION
   KUNTZ, J.

Rolls-Royce, PLC moves for rehearing directed to our opinion affirming the circuit court's denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We agree that the court erred by denying its motion without holding an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed issues of fact. As a result, we grant the motion for rehearing in part, withdraw our prior opinion, and substitute this opinion in its place. In our holding, we reverse the court's order denying the motion to dismiss and remand for further proceedings.

Background

Around twenty minutes after Spirit Airlines Flight 165 departed Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport for Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, one of the Airbus A319's engines exploded. Using its other engine, the A319 safely returned to Dallas without injury to any passengers or crew.

Spirit filed a lawsuit in the Broward County Circuit Court relating to the explosion, naming Rolls-Royce Corporation, Rolls-Royce North America, Rolls-Royce, PLC, IAE International Aero Engines AG, and Pratt & Whitney, a division of United Technologies Corporation, as defendants. In its complaint, Spirit asserted claims of negligence and gross negligence against the three Rolls-Royce entities, gross negligence against IAE, and gross negligence against Pratt & Whitney.

In 2012, Rolls-Royce performed major repairs and alterations on the engine at issue, including "removal, inspection and replacement of various components of the Engine's turbine as well as a restoration and refurbishment of the Engine's hot section." After the repairs, the engine was delivered to Spirit in Fort Lauderdale for "installation on the number one position-on the left side-of one of Spirit's Airbus A319, identified as Aircraft Registration No. N516NK."

Spirit also alleged that Rolls-Royce "took a $200 million share of the Spirit Airlines order of the V2500-model engine," stating that this shows Rolls-Royce "actually participated to the tune of $200 million dollars in the business component of Spirit's utilizing the V2500 model engine in its Florida operation."

Rolls-Royce moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Attached to the motion to dismiss was an affidavit of Will Morris, the Chief Counsel, Civil Aerospace, for Rolls-Royce. Within the affidavit, Mr. Morris stated that Rolls-Royce is organized under the laws of the United Kingdom, has its principal place of business in the United Kingdom, and maintains all of its corporate records in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Morris stated that Rolls-Royce did not design, manufacture, or sell the subject engine; Rolls-Royce is not a shareholder, member, or participant in IAE, nor a party to any contract between IAE and Spirit; and Rolls-Royce did no work on the subject engine or subject aircraft in Florida. Mr. Morris also stated that IAE and Rolls-Royce entered into an agreement, to which Spirit was not a party, under which Rolls-Royce would conduct V2500 engine repairs at Rolls-Royce's engine repair facility in East Kilbride, United Kingdom.

Under Rolls-Royce's contract with IAE, IAE had Spirit deliver the subject engine to Rolls-Royce's "East Kilbride repair facility for a scheduled restoration shop visit." Mr. Morris stated that any funds Rolls-Royce received for work done on the subject engine were from IAE and not Spirit. As for Spirit's allegation that Rolls-Royce "took a $200 million share of Spirit Airlines order of the V2500-model engine," Mr. Morris stated that the allegation is based on an ownership interest in IAE that Rolls-Royce sold-and sold before any of the events alleged in Spirit's complaint.

Spirit responded to Rolls-Royce's motion to dismiss, attaching various documents. Spirit separately filed an affidavit of Jim Baumiller, Spirit's Director of Engineering and Technical Support. Mr. Baumiller stated that when Spirit evaluated the V2500 engine for use and began operating the V2500 engine, Rolls-Royce held around a one-third interest in IAE. He stated that "[a]s far as Spirit is concerned, at all times during my tenure, [Rolls-Royce] repaired, maintained and overhauled the majority of V2500 engines operated by Spirit in its Florida-based operation."

Mr. Baumiller asserted that "this Engine was serviced, inspected and critical components overhauled by" Rolls-Royce, and that "after service, inspection and overhaul, [Rolls-Royce] delivered the Engine directly from the UK to Spirit in Florida." He also stated that "along with the Engine, [Rolls-Royce] delivered the written records and certifications of the servicing, inspections and overhauls performed by [Rolls-Royce]. The records were delivered directly to Spirit in Florida." Finally, Mr. Baumiller provided information relating to four other engines repaired by Rolls-Royce, and ultimately delivered to Spirit.

In reply, Rolls-Royce filed an affidavit of Alan Kelly, the Customer Business Manager for Rolls-Royce V2500, BR710, and TAY engines. Mr. Kelly stated that he is personally familiar with Rolls-Royce's contract with IAE and with Rolls-Royce's "role in providing service to certain components" of Spirit's V2500 series engines. Rolls-Royce sold its interest in IAE in mid-2012, however, continued to provide service to IAE under an agreement he states is "customarily referred to as the Common Maintenance Center Agreement or 'CMC Agreement.' " Pursuant to that CMC Agreement, Rolls-Royce performed work on engines for IAE, including engines owned by airlines with which IAE had "Fleet Hour Agreements."

A Fleet Hour Agreement, he explained, works in concert with the CMC Agreement. Under the Fleet Hour Agreement, IAE's customers notify IAE when an engine requires service, and Rolls-Royce has "no involvement whatsoever" in the process. IAE then directs its customer, the airline, to ship the engine to one of the facilities that IAE has a CMC Agreement with for service to the engine. Rolls-Royce operates one of those facilities, the facility in the United Kingdom.

Spirit and IAE, according to Mr. Kelly, entered into a Fleet Hour Agreement in April 2005, "pursuant to which IAE agreed to manage a select number of Spirit Airlines' V2500 engines." Under that agreement, IAE designated the specific engine to be shipped to Rolls-Royce for "planned/convenience purposes." Rolls-Royce was not involved in IAE selecting its facility to service this engine and "had no role in the transport or shipment of the engine to the United Kingdom." After Rolls-Royce completed the work on the subject engine, and after "it [was] fully reassembled, it [was] placed back on the engine stand which is the property of the airline, and covered in the airline engine bag." Rolls-Royce then notifies IAE that the engine is available for release.

Finally, Mr. Kelly stated that Rolls-Royce "does not pay for, coordinate, or arrange for the return shipment of engines delivered to it pursuant to IAE's arrangements as described above. Rather, pursuant to the CMC Agreement ... IAE and/or its agent is directly responsible for coordinating the return of the engine to IAE's customer, who in this case was Spirit Airlines." He also disputed Mr. Baumiller's assertion that Rolls-Royce directly delivered the accompanying paperwork to Spirit in Florida. Instead, Mr. Kelly stated that Rolls Royce released the records to a representative of IAE "who took custody and possession of the engine and placed it on a lorry at the loading dock of [Rolls-Royce] in East Kilbride, Great Britain."

After the briefing was complete, the circuit court held a hearing. Spirit conceded that it was only requesting that the court exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Rolls-Royce. After the hearing, the court asked counsel to submit proposed orders on the motion and later rendered an order denying Rolls-Royce's motion to dismiss. Rolls-Royce timely appealed the court's order.

Analysis

We review a court's order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction de novo . NHB Advisors, Inc. v. Czyzyk , 95 So.3d 444, 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Whether a Florida court has personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant involves a two-step inquiry. Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais , 554 So.2d 499, 502 (Fla. 1989). First, the court must determine whether the complaint alleges sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within Florida's long-arm statute. Id. If the plaintiff has met its burden in the first step, the court must determine whether sufficient "minimum contacts" are shown between the non-resident defendant and Florida to satisfy due process. Id.

Personal jurisdiction can be "specific" or "general." Marina Dodge, Inc. v. Quinn , 134 So.3d 1103, 1106-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Specific personal jurisdiction exists when "the alleged activities or actions of the defendant are directly connected to the forum state." Caiazzo v. Am. Royal Arts Corp. , 73 So.3d 245, 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). On the other hand, general personal jurisdiction exists when "the defendant's connection with the forum state is so substantial that no specific or enumerated relationship between the alleged wrongful actions and the state is necessary." Id.

Spirit first alleged that Rolls-Royce "engages in substantial, systematic, and non-isolated business activities throughout the United States, including Florida." Yet it has since withdrawn its claim that Rolls-Royce is subject to the general personal jurisdiction of the Florida courts. This allegation therefore is insufficient to satisfy the first inquiry.

Limited then to specific personal jurisdiction, Spirit must rely on its assertion that Rolls-Royce committed a tort in Florida. Under section 48.193(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2013), the Florida courts have personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant if that defendant committed a tortious act within the state. Generally, Spirit asserts that Rolls-Royce did so by delivering "the sinister engine to Florida for installation on the subject aircraft in Florida." Spirit argues that the jurisdictional discovery in the record "establishes that such return to service was accomplished via [Rolls-Royce's] Maintenance Release and other records which were prepared by [Rolls-Royce], packaged with the subject engine and sent by [Rolls-Royce] directly to Spirit in Florida where they were received and relied upon by Spirit's technicians in reinstalling the engine."

In Rolls-Royce's first responsive pleading, however, it filed the motion to dismiss and accompanying affidavits discussed above in detail. Based on the complaint and affidavits filed by the parties, it appears to be undisputed that there are no contractual agreements between Rolls-Royce and Spirit, and that Spirit made no payments directly to Rolls-Royce. It is also undisputed that the accident in question occurred in the sky, shortly after takeoff, from Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

Courts have found similar facts insufficient to exercise specific personal jurisdiction in Florida. In Hinkle v. Continental Motors, Inc. , 268 F.Supp.3d 1312 (M.D. Fla. 2017), the court was presented with a case involving "an aircraft purchased from a Minnesota corporation, sold by a Virginia salesperson, delivered in Minnesota, which crashed in South Carolina." Id. at 1317. The plaintiff alleged that "the post-accident testing showed the oil transducer was faulty and the engine did not produce the required power to function properly" and "generally that Kavlico manufactured a defective sensor in the Aircraft which contributed to the loss of engine power; [ ] and Cirrus manufactured a defective Aircraft and misrepresented its airworthiness." Id. at 1318.

The court drew on analysis from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 198 L.Ed.2d 395 (2017), a recent opinion from the Supreme Court, which "reiterated the importance of the 'affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State' in the context of specific jurisdiction." Hinkle , 268 F.Supp.3d at 1322 (quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb , 137 S.Ct. at 1780 ). Because the plaintiffs in Bristol-Myers Squibb did not allege "that they obtained the product from an in-forum source, or were injured or treated in the forum state. ... "[T]he Supreme Court held that the California courts lacked specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant." Id.

Returning to the issue before it, the court found that "it is undisputed that the alleged tort caused injury in South Carolina, the site of the crash, not Florida. And the Aircraft was sold from and delivered in Minnesota. And any alleged tortious act, based on the allegations in the Complaint and Amended Complaint, occurred outside of Florida." Id. at 1324.

The plaintiffs in Hinkle , as here, relied on Wendt v. Horowitz , 822 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 2002), to support their argument that our long-arm statute is satisfied by the commission of a tort out of state that causes injury to a Florida resident. Id. at 1324. The court rejected this. Id. We agree, because Wendt is premised on an actual connection between the tortious act and Florida. See id. On the facts in Hinkle , which are similar to the facts in this case, that connection did not exist.

We agree with Hinkle and, here, the alleged connection to Florida may be similarly tenuous. At a bare minimum, the two affidavits filed by Rolls-Royce create a disputed issue as to the allegations asserted by Spirit. And, in our state court system, those disputed issues must be resolved through an evidentiary hearing. See, e.g. , Packaging & Distribution Res., LLC v. Duke Realty Ltd. , 194 So.3d 509, 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). That is what must occur in this case to resolve the disputed factual issues, a dispute limited to whether the court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Rolls-Royce.

Conclusion

Rolls-Royce filed two affidavits that created disputed issues of fact about whether the court could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over it. The court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputed issues. As a result, we reverse the court's order and remand for an evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputed issues. If the court concludes Rolls-Royce did not commit a tortious act within the state of Florida, the motion to dismiss must be granted.

Reversed and Remanded.

Taylor and Levine, JJ., concur.

      In its complaint, Spirit collectively refers to Rolls-Royce Corporation, Rolls-Royce North America, and Rolls-Royce, PLC, as "Rolls-Royce."

      See § 48.193, Fla. Stat. (2013).

      A similar result was reached in Clay v. AIG Aerospace Ins. Services, Inc. , 61 F.Supp.3d 1255 (M.D. Fla. 2014).

      In the federal court system an evidentiary hearing to determine personal jurisdiction is not required but held at the discretion of the court. Snow v. DirecTV, Inc. , 450 F.3d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir. 2006).


author: May, J.

text:
    Gianni LIZANO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-4329
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [March 7, 2018]
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Stacey Kime, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J. Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   May, J.

The defendant appeals his sentence after having been found guilty of possession of THC and the denial of his rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct his sentence. He argues the trial court erred in relying on acquitted conduct in sentencing him and in imposing certain special conditions to his probation. We agree and reverse.

After the jury convicted the defendant, the trial court withheld adjudication and sentenced him to three years' probation with general and special conditions. The defendant filed a motion to correct his sentence, to which the State acquiesced by email. Nevertheless, the trial court failed to rule on the motion within sixty days and it was deemed denied. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B).

He now argues the trial court erred in relying on acquitted conduct in his sentencing, in imposing certain special conditions, and in denying his rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. Those conditions included: (1) prohibiting the Department of Corrections from recommending early termination of his probation; (2) broad alcohol-related special conditions which bear no relationship to the offense or offender; and (3) special conditions which were not pronounced.

We find no error in the court's comment that amounted to a reliance on acquitted conduct in imposing sentence and affirm on that issue. We reverse on the second issue as the special conditions imposed were either illegal, unwarranted, or in conflict with the trial court's oral pronouncement at sentencing.

First, a "trial judge is not authorized to divest the Department of Corrections of its authority to recommend early termination of probation. Moreover, a trial judge is not empowered to prevent the circuit court in the future from exercising its authority to discharge a probationer." Arriaga v. State , 666 So.2d 949, 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Baker v. State , 619 So.2d 411, 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) ).

Second, a special condition of probation is invalid if "it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality." Biller v. State , 618 So.2d 734, 734-35 (Fla. 1993) (citing Rodriguez v. State , 378 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) ). Here, the "no-alcohol" conditions lack a relationship to possessing THC. See Richardson v. State , 620 So.2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding a condition on alcohol consumption was unrelated to a conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to sell). Those conditions were also not inherently criminal as the defendant was 21 years of age. And, there was no evidence that he had a history with alcohol abuse.

Third, "a written sentence that conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence imposed in open court is an illegal sentence."

Williams v. State , 957 So.2d 600, 603 (Fla. 2007). Here, that conflict exists.

Special conditions one, three, and six were not pronounced in open court. Those conditions require the defendant to pay for alcohol evaluations and random testing for drugs and alcohol. See Carter v. State , 677 So.2d 1349, 1350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding it was "error for the trial court to require that [the defendant] pay for any random drug testing, as it too was not orally pronounced.").

During sentencing, the trial court pronounced a curfew between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Special condition nine provides for a curfew between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Because the written order differs from the oral pronouncement, it should be stricken for being more severe. See Williams , 957 So.2d at 603.

The trial court also orally required the defendant to complete "a hundred community service hours." Although special condition eight accurately reflects this mandate, community control special condition 18 also required the defendant to complete 100 hours of community service. Because community control special condition 18 can be construed as requiring the defendant to complete an additional 100 hours of community service, it should be stricken for being more severe and differing from the oral pronouncement at sentencing. See id.

We therefore reverse and remand the sentence for the trial court to strike the special conditions outlined above.

Reversed and remanded.

Damoorgian, J., concurs.

Taylor, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

Taylor, J., concurring in part, and dissenting in part.

I concur in the majority opinion reversing and remanding the defendant's sentence to strike invalid special conditions of probation. However, I would reverse the entire sentence, because the record suggests that the trial court fundamentally erred when it considered acquitted conduct during sentencing, and because the state failed to prove that the acquitted conduct played no role in the sentence imposed.

The defendant was convicted of possession of THC candy, but he was acquitted of attempting to sell the THC candy. During the sentencing hearing, however, while the defendant's father was testifying under oath, the trial court interjected and asked the defendant's father if he thought his son "was just trying to make some extra money."

The defendant argues that the trial court's inquiry was impermissible because he was acquitted of possession with intent to sell, and the trial court's question about his financial motivation showed that the court rejected the jury's verdict and improperly considered the acquitted charge during sentencing.

Due process prohibits a trial court from considering charges of which an accused has been acquitted in passing sentence. Townsend v. Burke , 334 U.S. 736, 740-41, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948) ; Doty v. State , 884 So.2d 547, 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ; Evans v. State , 816 So.2d 742, 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) ; Epprecht v. State , 488 So.2d 129, 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

Moreover, the burden is on the state to show that the trial court did not rely on improper factors in sentencing the defendant "where portions of the record reflect that the trial judge may have so relied." Seays v. State , 789 So.2d 1209, 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Epprecht , 488 So.2d at 130 ). Here, the state failed to show that the court did not rely on the acquitted "intent to sell" conduct, where the court's question suggested that it believed that the defendant tried to sell the THC candy and that it needed to know why he tried to sell the THC candy before sentencing the defendant.

Accordingly, I would reverse and remand for resentencing in front of a different judge. See Doty , 884 So.2d at 551.

      The order of probation provides that the defendant entered a plea of guilty, but he was convicted after a jury trial.

      Special condition five-prohibiting the defendant from associating with anyone consuming alcohol-was also not pronounced in open court.


text:
    Eddie HUMPHREY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-1501
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [March 7, 2018]
    Eddie Humphrey, Indiantown, pro se.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

Eddie Humphrey appeals the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Humphrey challenges two sentences: (1) a sentence of forty years in prison with a thirty-year mandatory minimum as a violent career criminal ("VCC") for strong arm robbery, and (2) a sentence of mandatory life as a prison releasee reoffender ("PRR") for burglary of a structure with a battery. We affirm as to the VCC sentence, but reverse as to the PRR sentence and remand for resentencing on the burglary conviction.

Humphrey's VCC sentence is not illegal for the purpose of rule 3.800(a) because he does not dispute that his prior convictions qualified him as a VCC under section 775.084(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2005). See Judge v. State , 596 So.2d 73, 76-77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (en banc); see also Bover v. State , 797 So.2d 1246, 1248-50 (Fla. 2001) ; Ives v. State , 993 So.2d 117, 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Humphrey's claim that the State did not sufficiently establish his qualification at sentencing should have been raised on direct appeal or in a timely motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Ives , 993 So.2d at 120 (explaining that rule 3.850 provides a remedy for a deficiency in the procedure used to impose an enhanced sentence only if the movant can show prejudice, such as an illegal sentence).

Humphrey's sentence of mandatory life as a PRR, however, is illegal because the offense of burglary of a structure with a battery does not qualify for PRR sentencing. An offense qualifies for PRR sentencing only if it is enumerated in the statute or "involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual." § 775.082(9)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2005). The only enumerated burglary offenses are armed burglary, burglary of a dwelling, and burglary of an occupied structure. See § 775.082(9)(a)1.p., q., Fla. Stat. (2005). Burglary of an unoccupied structure is excluded. Wilkes v. State , 123 So.3d 632, 635-36 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) ; Dennis v. State , 16 So.3d 331, 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The addition of a battery does not qualify Humphrey's conviction under the "catch-all" provision because battery does not necessarily involve "the use or threat of physical force or violence." Tumblin v. State , 965 So.2d 354, 355-56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (applying State v. Hearns , 961 So.2d 211 (Fla. 2007) ).

Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Humphrey's motion as to the PRR sentence and remand for de novo resentencing on the conviction for burglary of a structure with a battery. We affirm as to the VCC sentence.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.

Damoorgian, Ciklin and Levine, JJ., concur.

      The State argued below that Humphrey was convicted of burglary of an occupied structure, but the record does not support that contention. Humphrey was charged with and convicted of burglary with a battery under section 810.02(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The jury did not make a finding that the structure was occupied at the time of the offense.


text:
    Srinath SUBRAMANIAN, Appellant, v. Veena SUBRAMANIAN, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-4263
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [March 14, 2018]
    Elizabeth J. Kates, Pompano Beach, and Lisa Marie Macci of Lisa Marie Macci, PA, Boca Raton, for appellant.
    Terrence P. O'Connor of Morgan, Carratt & O'Connor, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The former husband appeals and the former wife cross-appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm with respect to the vast majority of the former husband's many arguments because the issues raised are either meritless, unpreserved, or waived. We also affirm with respect to the issue raised on cross-appeal without further discussion. However, we reverse in part to correct an error within the judgment's timesharing schedule and error within the equitable distribution scheme.

The timesharing schedule provides for progressive increases in the former husband's timesharing with the parties' minor children and specifies:

11. After Husband's successful completion of 3 months of supervised timesharing described in the prior paragraph, and provided that father's therapist, mother's therapist[,] children's therapist and the GAL agree, additional weekday supervised timesharing should be provided to Husband.
12. After 6 months of successful supervised timesharing as provided above and provided that Husband is consistently attending therapy and complying with the instructions of his therapist, and provided that the children's therapists and the GAL agree, Husband shall begin unsupervised timesharing. The goal is to obtain an unsupervised timesharing schedule with overnights provided that the family therapist, Husband's therapist, and the GAL believe that sufficient progress has been made such that the children can enjoy a positive and constructive relationship with Husband.

The provisions above are not erroneous in their entirety; the trial court properly set forth the specific steps the former husband must take to reestablish timesharing, see Witt-Bahls v. Bahls , 193 So.3d 35, 38-39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), and was within its discretion to condition increased timesharing on the successful completion of parenting courses and therapy, see Preudhomme v. Bailey , 82 So.3d 138, 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). However, the trial court erred insofar as the order delegates authority to determine visitation to therapists and the guardian ad litem. See Shugar v. Shugar , 924 So.2d 941, 942 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) ("Courts may not delegate their statutory authority to determine visitation to GALs, attorneys, or experts."). Accordingly, we reverse the timesharing plan to this extent, but because we are reversing one aspect, "the court may reconsider the entire plan and take additional testimony as it deems appropriate on these issues." See Preudhomme , 82 So.3d at 142.

Turning to the equitable distribution scheme, the trial court erred in including a series of promissory notes totaling $175,150 and a debt consolidation loan of $35,000 as marital liabilities. "The cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities to be identified or classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, such other date as may be expressly established by such agreement, or the date of the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage." § 61.075(7), Fla. Stat. (2014). The evidence established that the loans were incurred by the former wife after the litigation commenced; therefore, they may not be classified as marital liabilities. Consequently, we reverse with respect to this issue and remand for the trial court to identify the marital assets and liabilities as of the date of the filing of the petition for dissolution and reconsider the equitable distribution of the parties' assets and liabilities.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CIKLIN, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Spencer Robert BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D15-5500
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed July 19, 2017.
    Spencer Robert Baker, pro se.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Baker v. State, No. 2D15-5501, 231 So.3d 535, 2017 WL 3040107 (Fla. 2d DCA July 19, 2017).

NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.