text:
    McNeal v. State
    2D15-4423
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    McPherson v. State
    2D15-5134
    04/07/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Mejia-Romero v. State
    2D16-3022
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Manatee)


text:
    Mercer v. State
    2D15-5098
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Polk)


text:
    Merritt v. State
    2D16-3996
    04/28/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Miley v. State
    2D17-0222
    04/26/2017
   Dism.


text:
    Miller v. State
    2D16-4640
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Sarasota)


text:
    Moore v. State
    2D16-4470
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Moorehouse v. State
    2D17-1146
    04/10/2017
   Pet.den.


text:
    Morant v. State
    2D16-4986
    04/21/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lee)


text:
    Moroney v. State
    2D16-3425
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Charlotte)


text:
    Morrin v. State
    2D16-3475
    04/07/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Charlotte)


text:
    Mountain v. State
    2D16-3458
    04/07/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Polk)


text:
    Orr v. State
    2D15-708
    04/28/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Collier)


text:
    Pandiscio v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
    2D16-2548
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lee)


text:
    Pedraza-Hernandez v. State
    2D16-1763
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Pelaez v. State
    2D16-3
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Perez v. State
    2D16-584
    04/07/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pasco)


text:
    Perez v. State
    2D16-5024
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pasco)


text:
    Peterson v. State
    2D16-3698
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Pettyjohn v. State
    2D16-4040
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Pierson v. State
    2D15-5045
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Pioneer Construction, LLC v. Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation
    2D16-4757
    04/28/2017
   Aff.

Dept, of Financial Services


text:
    Pittman v. State
    2D16-4498
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Poniatowski v. State
    2D16-4067
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Polk)


text:
    Profetto v. State
    2D16-3889
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Charlotte)


text:
    PT Capital Investments, LLC v. Federal National Mortgage Association
    2D16-851
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lee)


text:
    Ramey v. Department of Children and Families
    2D16-2327
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Dept, of Children and Families


text:
    Razny v. State
    2D16-4781
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pasco)


text:
    Reed v. State
    2D16-4813
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Polk)


text:
    Reeves v. State
    2D16-3253
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Ricketts v. State
    2D16-1633
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Highlands)


text:
    Riley v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission
    2D16-365
    04/21/2017
   Aff.

Reemployment Assistance Apps. Com’n


text:
    Riley v. State
    2D16-5019
    04/28/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Rivera v. State
    2D16-1041
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Rivera v. University of South Florida
    2D16-3725
    04/07/2017
   Cert.den.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Robinson v. State
    2D16-4482
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Rodney v. Department of Revenue
    2D16-2566
    04/07/2017
   Aff.

Dept, of Revenue


text:
    Rodriguez v. State
    2D16-4235
    04/07/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Rogers v. State
    2D15-3801
    04/28/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Har-dee)


text:
    Rondon v. State
    2D15-2044
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Rowe v. State
    2D16-4785
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Russell v. State
    2D16-3939
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lee)


text:
    Sampson v. State
    2D16-3614
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Sarasota County v. Sarasota Surf & Racquet Club Condominium Association, Inc.
    2D16-3637
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Sarasota)


text:
    Scaife v. State
    2D16-3200
    04/28/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Polk)


text:
    Schneider v. State
    2D16-798
    04/21/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Charlotte)


text:
    Scott v. State
    2D16-2134
    04/28/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Sealy v. State
    2D16-3925
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Shepherd v. State
    2D16-2920
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lee)


text:
    Sherman v. Silverio & Hall, P.A.
    2D16-3888
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Collier)


text:
    Skinner v. State
    2D16-3194
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Smith v. State
    2D16-4136
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (DeSo-to)


text:
    Smith v. State
    2D16-4627
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Charlotte)


text:
    Smith v. State
    2D16-1774
    04/07/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Smith v. State
    2D16-3377
    04/07/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Smith v. State
    2D16-3882
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Smith v. State
    2D15-3322
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lee)


text:
    Smith v. State
    2D16-3786
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Har-dee) '


text:
    Smith v. State
    2D16-4814
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Polk)


text:
    Smith v. State
    2D16-4210
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Smith v. Webster Business Credit Corporation
    2D16-2109
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Souza v. Sharpe
    2D16-1823
    04/07/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Charlotte)


text:
    Squire v. State
    2D16-2371
    04/28/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Sarasota)


text:
    State v. Morgan
    2D16-1709
    04/07/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Stevenson v. State
    2D16-1685
    04/07/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Polk)


text:
    Stona v. State
    2D16-3911
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct (Pinel-las)


text:
    Strickland v. State
    2D16-2971
    04/21/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Sarasota)


text:
    Taylor v. State
    2D16-4816
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Polk)


text:
    Taylor v. State
    2D16-2166
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lee)


text:
    Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc. v. Warshauer
    2D16-3868
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pasco)


text:
    Testa-Yero v. State
    2D16-3965
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Hills-borough)


text:
    Thomas v. State
    2D16-3404
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Thompson v. State
    2D16-2168
    04/28/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Torres v. State
    2D16-1327
    04/28/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lee)


text:
    Vazquez v. State
    2D16-3348
    04/07/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Vega v. State
    2D16-3234
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Walker v. State
    2D15-2476
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Walker v. State
    2D16-3465
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir, Ct. (Highlands)


text:
    Walker v. Toomey
    2D16-3052
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lee)


text:
    Weaver v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission
    2D16-1015
    04/07/2017
   Aff.

Reemployment Assistance Apps. Com’n


text:
    Webb v. State
    2D16-4105
    04/21/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Webb v. State
    2D16-3124
    04/21/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    White v. State
    2D16-2290
    04/07/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Whitten v. State
    2D16-2884
    04/28/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Polk)


text:
    Wilder v. State
    2D16-3356
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Williams v. State
    2D16-4580
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-. borough)


text:
    Williams v. State
    2D16-4559
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Williams v. State
    2D16-3896
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Williams v. State
    2D16-4619
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Williams v. State
    2D16-4711
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinellas)


text:
    Williams v. State
    2D16-1728
    04/28/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Highlands)


text:
    Wood v. State
    2D16-4462
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Woodall v. State
    2D16-93
    04/21/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pasco)


text:
    Yeager v. State
    2D15-4478
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    1350 Main Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. City of Sarasota
    2D16-2818
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Sarasota)


text:
    A. J. v. State
    3D16-2378
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    A.R. v. Department of Children and Families
    3D16-2905
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    AbouelSeoud v. Elbadrawi
    3D16-502
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Adeleke v. Jacobs
    3D16-1190
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Anderson v. State
    3D16-2751
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Baker v. State
    3D17-18
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Monroe)


text:
    Ball v. Genesis Outsourcing Solutions, LLC
    3D15-1649
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Belvant v. Saint Vil
    3D16-2112
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Bernard v. State
    3D16-1882
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Bishop v. State
    3D16-1499
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

.Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Bradley v. State
    3D16-1494
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Butler v. Barry University, Inc.
    3D16-161
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    C.M. v. Department of Children and Families.
    3D16-2565
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Calveira v. State
    3D15-2584
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Carrillo-Garcia v. State
    3D16-2847
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Charles v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
    3D16-730
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Ciribi v. Onorato.
    3D15-2625
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Cochran v. State
    3D15-2881
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Donithan v. State
    3D16-377
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Monroe)


text:
    Dorsey v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC
    3D16-1857
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Dunbar v. State
    3D16-2361
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Ellis v. US Bank National Association
    3D16-2
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Fernandez v. State
    3D15-2297
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Fernandez v. State
    3D17-409
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Garcia v. State
    3D15-2236
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Gomez v. Gomez
    3D16-511
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Gomez v. State
    3D16-1624
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Gomez v. State
    3D16-1558
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Grant v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
    3D16-612
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Hyppolite v. State
    3D17-442
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    J.C. v. State
    3D16-825
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    James v. State
    3D16-1360
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Johnson v. State
    3D16-2896
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Jones v. State
    3D17-0498
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Jones v. State
    3D17-521
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Jordan v. State
    3D16-1052
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    K.J. v. State
    3D16-1648
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    K.Z. v. State
    3D16-2613
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    L.A. v. State
    3D16-2532
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    L.V. v. State
    3D16-2815
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-

Dade)


text:
    Landman v. Diaz
    3D16-1025
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Lebrun v. State
    3D16-2494
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Lewis v. State
    3D16-1091
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Llano Financing Group, LLC v. Bromfield
    3D16-1925
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Louis v. State
    3D16-408
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Luma v. State
    3D17-414
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    M.J. v. State
    3D16-2590
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Marin v. Fannie Mae ("Federal National Mortgage Association”)
    3D15-2484
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Martin v. State
    3D16-2575
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Monroe)


text:
    Mathis v. State
    3D16-1345
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Mayoral v. Mayoral
    3D15-2107
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Miami-Dade)


text:
    McSherry v. Flagstar Bank, FSB
    3D15-2442
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Monroe)


text:
    Menada, Inc. v. CSC Serviceworks, Inc.
    3D17-279
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Milano, Inc. v. City of Miami
    3D15-2537
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Morey v. State
    3D17-102
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Mwamba v. State
    3D16-1104
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Navarro v. Perez
    3D15-2724
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Nelson v. State
    3D17-0146
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Oseitutu v. Abuzeid
    3D16-1277
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Owens v. State
    3D16-2717
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Perez v. State
    3D16-950
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Philips v. Pienkowska
    3D16-2091
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Pina v. State
    3D17-459
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Pitts v. State
    3D17-67
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Poliakoff v. Fabricant Morton & Company, P.A.
    3D16-881
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Rodriguez v. Kendall 1 Plaza, Ltd.
    3D16-1617
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Ruiz v. State
    3D17-303
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Sanchez v. State
    3D16-2866
    04/19/2017
   Aff. •

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Simmons v. State
    3D16-2359
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Smith v. Smith
    3D15-2880, 3D15-2624
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Smith v. State
    3D16-2863
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Solorio v. State
    3D16-2012
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

.Cir. Ct, (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Suarez v. State
    3D17-501
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Sylverin v. State
    3D17-190
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Valdespino v. State
    3D17-410
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct.'(Miarni-Dade)


text:
    Washington v. State
    3D17-295
    04/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Weiss v. Bank of America, N.A.
    3D16-1868
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Welch v. State
    3D17-214
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    White v. State
    3D16-2664
    04/05/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Davidson v. State
    4D17-25
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    A.D.J. v. State
    4D16-1993
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    A.R. v. State Department of Children and Families
    4D16-4370
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Acikgoz v. Acikgoz
    4D16-1099
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Alexopoulos v. Gordon Hargrove & James, P.A.
    4D16-3412
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Bro-ward)


text:
    All Construction Systems, Inc. v. Lopez
    4D16-3467
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Allen v. State
    4D17-256
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Althouse v. City of West Palm Beach
    4D16-2316
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Aragona v. Citimortgage, Inc.
    4D16-2000
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Artola v. Mortgage Warehousing Recoveries
    4D16-1773
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Bailey v. State
    4D15-2678
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Bailey v. State
    4D16-761
    04/27/2017
   Aff,

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Barbosa v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ex rel. GAAS Home Equity Trust 2006-16.
    4D16-596
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Barnes v. State
    4D16-4214
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie) ■


text:
    Behrens v. State
    4D17-273
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Benson v. National Residential Assets Corp.
    4D16-1543
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Palm Beach)


text:
    Bernstein v. Bernstein
    4D16-222
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Blackwood v. State
    4D16-466
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Bowens v. State
    4D16-862
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Boyd v. State
    4D17-54
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Martin)


text:
    Bribiesca-Tafolla v. State
    4D16-449
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Bromell v. State
    4D17-178
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Brooks v. State
    4D15-3495
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Brown v. State
    4D16-3116
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Indian River)


text:
    Brown v. State
    4D15-1919
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Browne v. State
    4D15-1539
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Burrell v. Navy Federal Credit Union
    4D15-3569
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    C.A. v. State
    4D16-1192
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Cartwright v. State
    4D15-4575
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Chente v. State
    4D17-0557
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Martin)


text:
    Chibnick v. Chibnick
    4D16-0308
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Cius v. State
    4D16-2608, 4D16-2609
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Clarles v. State
    4D16-4227
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Clements v. State
    4D16-3523
    04/20/2017
   Aff.-

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Connolly v. ALS XII LLC
    4D16-2065
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Curry v. State
    4D16-4344
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    CHG Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Hale
    4D16-3040
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    CR Technologies, Inc. v. US Datanet Corporation
    4D16-2635
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    D.C. v. State
    4D16-0701
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Daniels v. State
    4D15-2815
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Daniels v. State
    4D15-1964
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Daniels v. State
    4D16-772
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Daniels v. State
    4D15-4299
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Daucher v. State
    4D16-3776
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Indian River)


text:
    Delancy v. State
    4D16-708
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Dennard v. State
    4D17-285
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    DeAlmeida v. Holmes
    4D16-256
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Dickerson v. State
    4D17-0041
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Dino v. State
    4D17-253
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Dunklin v. Jones
    4D16-2981
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    E.L. v. State, Department of Children and Families
    4D16-3488
    04/24/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Ellington v. State
    4D15-1082
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Estate of Miller v. N.S.S. Acquisition Corp.
    4D16-3122
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Evans v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.
    4D16-958
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Fassacheti v. Southern Fidelity Insurance Company
    4D16-0333
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Feriola v. State
    4D16-2181
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Martin)


text:
    Fernandez-Perez v. State
    4D16-3808
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Ferraro v. State
    4D17-0192
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Fleming v. PennyMac Corp.
    4D16-891
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Fletcher v. State
    4D16-4293
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Franco v. State
    4D17-0340
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Franklin v. School Board of Palm Beach County
    4D16-2679
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Franklin v. State
    4D16-1953
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Friedman v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
    4D16-0439
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Galarza v. State
    4D16-2264
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Gavis v. State
    4D15-4634
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Girard v. Francois
    4D16-3128
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Gt. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Gonzales v. State
    4D15-61
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Gonzalez v. State
    4D16-3835
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Grandison v. State
    4D17-548
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Indian River)


text:
    Green v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
    4D16-2591
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm ■Beach)


text:
    Greenspoon v. State
    4D16-394
    04/06/2017
   •Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Hamilton v. State
    4D17-134
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Harp v. State
    4D17-135
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Hicks v. State
    4D17-551
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Hill v. State
    4D17-355
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Martin)


text:
    Hodge v. State
    4D15-4577
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Hogan v. State
    4D16-1612
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Okeechobee)


text:
    Holste v. Xerox Recovery Services for Florida Agency for Health Care Administration
    4D16-2655
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Hooper v. State
    4D15-4794
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Indian ' River)


text:
    Horton v. State
    4D17-180
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Hudson v. Residential Credit Solutions
    4D15-4111
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Hudson v. State
    4D16-4336
    04/13/2017
   Aff,

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Hughes v. Federal National Mortgage Association
    4D16-233
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Hughes v. State
    4D15-2638
    04/27/2017
   Aff,

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Hunt v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-1
    4D15-4252
    04/27/2017
   Aff,

Cir, Ct, (Bro-ward)


text:
    Hunter v. State
    4D16-1956
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Ibrahim v. Sedky
    4D16-1814
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Imberman v. State
    4D15-4655
    04/13/2017
   Aff,

Cir, Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    J.B. v. State Department of Children and Families
    4D16-4315
    04/03/2017
   Aff.

Cir, Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Jeffers v. Davis
    4D16-3036
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir, Ct, (Bro-ward)


text:
    Jenkins v. State
    4D17-46
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir, Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Johnson v. Kadenbach
    4D16-2305
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Johnson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
    4D16-1331
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir, Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
    4D16-949
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Martin)


text:
    Joseph v. U.S. Bank National Association
    4D16-1306
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Bro-ward)


text:
    Juden v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association
    4D16-1436
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Kadlecz v. State
    4D15-3403
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Kahane v. Mascara
    4D16-1016
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Kines v. State
    4D16-1870
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Kratish v. Kratish
    4D16-1352
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir, Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Lane v. State
    4D16-2040
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Larrieux v. State
    4D13-2304
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Lawrence v. State
    4D15-4850
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Lazo v. State
    4D17-356
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Leacock v. State
    4D15-3850
    04/13/2017
   Aff,

Cir. Ct, (Bro-ward)


text:
    Linares v. The Bank of New York Mellon
    4D16-754
    04/27/2017
   Aff,

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Lopez v. Devito
    4D16-2171
    04/06/2017
   Aff,

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Luxama v. State
    4D15-4009
    04/27/2017
   Aff,

Cir. Ct. (Indian River)


text:
    Magenheim v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.
    4D16-808
    04/06/2017
   Aff,

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Manzoor v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association
    4D15-4287
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Marsden v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ex rel. Holders of Thornburg Mortgage Securities Trust 2004-3 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-3
    4D16-474
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir, Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Martelus v. State
    4D16-4060
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    McCloud v. State
    4D16-4333
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Cf, (Indian River)


text:
    McCuaig v. State
    4D16-3391
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir, Ct, (Bro-ward)


text:
    McMillan v. State
    4D16-4337
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    McSwain v. State
    4D17-0284
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Martin)


text:
    Meighan v. Branch Banking & Trust Company
    4D16-3165
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Palm Beach)


text:
    Minerley Fein, P.A. v. Guardianship of Block
    4D16-2308
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Mingo v. State
    4D16-3419
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Montero v. State
    4D17-280
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Moore v. State
    4D16-0981
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Morales v. State
    4D17-604
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Morgenstein v. Bank of America, N.A.
    4D15-3117
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Moss v. State
    4D16-3847
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cif. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Mubarak Qureshi v. State
    4D16-681
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Martin)


text:
    Muller v. Huff
    4D16-3160
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Murphy v. Murphy
    4D15-4582
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Murray v. State
    4D17-131
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    N.B. v. Department of Children and Families
    4D16-3737, 4D16-3785
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    N.V. v. State
    4D16-2353
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Newman v. State
    4D17-161
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Nunez v. State
    4D17-48
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    O.K. v. Department of Children and Families
    4D16-600, 4D16-2017, 4D16-2104
    04/17/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Offir v. CitiMortgage Inc.
    4D15-4041
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Oswiecinski v. State
    4D16-2137
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Owens v. State
    4D17-761
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Martin)


text:
    Palm Beach Polo, Inc. v. Village of Wellington
    4D16-2434
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Perez v. State
    4D15-4803
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle
    4D16-1807
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Phillipe v. State
    4D15-3619
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Pinkston v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
    4D16-3494
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Pitts v. State
    4D16-2346
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    PNC Bank, National Association v. Stultz
    4D16-0541
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    R.J. v. Department of Children and Families
    4D16-3868
    04/03/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Block
    4D16-141
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Rakofsky v. Ally Bank
    4D16-1106
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Rassiga v. Martin
    4D16-2968
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Reed v. State
    4D16-4019
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Reid v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC
    4D16-273
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Resendez v. Fortuna
    4D15-4780
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Richardson v. State
    4D14-4126
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Martin)


text:
    Rios v. Federal National Mortgage Association
    4D16-2537
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Robinson v. State
    4D16-1202
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Robinson v. State
    4D16-2777, 4D16-2778
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Rock Island Ventures, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
    4D16-0872
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward) ;


text:
    Rodriguez v. State
    4D16-4292
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Rodriguez v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. for LSF9 Mster Participation Trust
    4D16-1348
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Sanchez v. State
    4D16-4256
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Martin)


text:
    Scott v. PNC Bank, National Association
    4D16-1700
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Shlager v. ASI Assurance Corporation
    4D15-1006
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Silva Back, Inc. v. Stok Folk Kon, PA
    4D15-4610
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Smith v. State
    4D14-4330
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St, Lu-cie)


text:
    State v. Hernandez
    4D16-3724
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Stokes v. State
    4D16-3642
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lu-cie)


text:
    Streamline Lending Corporation v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
    4D15-4027
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Suggs v. State
    4D17-0092
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Okeechobee)


text:
    Super Service, LLC v. Agredo
    4D16-447
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Super Service, LLC v. Agredo
    4D15-2583, 4D16-17
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    T.B. v. Department of Children and Families
    4D16-4133
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Tamarac Hotels, Inc. v. Johnson
    4D15-2962
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Taylor v. Nikolits for Palm Beach County
    4D16-542
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Thomas v. State
    4D16-135
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Thompson v. Players Place Lakeside, Inc.
    4D16-1808
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Torrez v. State
    4D16-3083
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Bro-ward)


text:
    Tribble v. State
    4D15-2356
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir, Ct. (Martin)


text:
    Trotman v. State
    4D15-3542, 4D15-3543
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Unknown Spouse of Almonte v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company for GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-17
    4D16-3612
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Vanover v. Fannie Mae
    4D15-4040
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Vargas v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC
    4D16-2735, 4D16-3421
    04/20/2017
   Aff,

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Ventnor "B" Condominium Association, Inc. v. Grossman
    4D16-0869
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Walsh v. State
    4D17-0143
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir, Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Walters v. Valley National Bank, N.A.
    4D16-2152
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Walz v. Adornato
    4D16-1806
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Werner v. Werner
    4D16-2385
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Wesby v. State
    4D15-3579
    04/27/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Whisenant v. State
    4D16-3511
    04/06/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Williams v. State
    4D15-2814, 4D15-2851, 4D15-2852, 4D15-2853, 4D15-2854
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Woodson v. Palm Beach Resource Recovery Corporation
    4D16-1450, 4D16-1544
    04/20/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Workman v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
    4D16-415
    04/13/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Dowdy v. State
    5D16-3667
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Putnam)


text:
    James v. State
    5D16-2459
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Anderson v. State
    5D16-880
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir, Ct. (Citrus)


text:
    Anderson v. State
    5D17-240
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Marion)


text:
    Annis v. State
    5D17-584
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Ashley v. State
    5D16-1335
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Baez v. SRMOF II 2012-1 Trust
    5D16-699
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lake)


text:
    Bank of America, N.A. v. Tiow Yeo
    5D15-3913
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Bank of America, N.A. v. US Bank National Association
    5D15-2517
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Johns)


text:
    Bank of New York Mellon v. Bagga
    5D16-2196
    05/30/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Barnes v. Orlando Rehabilitation Group, Inc.
    5D15-4346
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Barrios v. State
    5D17-424
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Benabe-Rivera v. State
    5D17-458
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Blais v. State
    5D16-3805
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Blaugh v. State
    5D17-118
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Blunt v. State
    5D16-3706
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lake)


text:
    Bowman v. MTGLQ Investors, LP
    5D15-3924
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Her-nando)


text:
    Bradfield v. State
    5D16-2245
    05/10/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Osceola)


text:
    Breeze v. State
    5D16-3286
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Brown v. Brown
    5D16-3610
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Brown v. State
    5D15-4510
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Brown v. State
    5D16-3848
    05/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Brown v. State
    5D16-2359
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Marion)


text:
    Brunette v. State
    5D16-933
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Her-nando)


text:
    C.L.T. v. State
    5D16-3302
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    C.S. v. Department of Children and Families
    5D16-4449
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Callahan v. State
    5D17-120
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Carn v. Department of Corrections
    5D16-4125
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Cioeta v. State
    5D16-4207
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Cochran v. State
    5D16-4430
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Cole v. State
    5D16-3905
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Citrus)


text:
    Collins v. State
    5D16-4241
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Collins v. State
    5D16-3336
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Cookston v. Marion County Sheriff's Office
    5D16-403, 5D16-405
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Marion)


text:
    Cookston v. Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel
    5D16-1066
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Marion)


text:
    Cooper v. State
    5D16-2082
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Citrus)


text:
    Crawford v. State
    5D16-2980
    06/01/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Davis v. Department of Corrections
    5D16-2829
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Marion)


text:
    Davis v. State
    5D17-151
    06/07/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Osceola)


text:
    Demarco v. State
    5D16-615
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Marion)


text:
    Denson v. State
    5D15-4145
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Putnam)


text:
    Dethomas v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
    5D16-3097
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Osceola)


text:
    Detreville v. State
    5D16-2881
    05/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Seminole)


text:
    DeJesus v. State
    5D15-3981
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Dial v. State
    5D16-2204
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Johns)


text:
    Draper v. State
    5D16-2791
    05/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St'. Johns)


text:
    Dudley v. Wright
    5D16-3900
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Johns)


text:
    Easley v. State
    5D16-2309
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Marion)


text:
    Ellis v. State
    5D17-374
    05/19/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Citrus)


text:
    Equity Resources, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. for Deutsche Alt A Securities, Inc.
    5D16-936
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Esposito v. Martins Properties, Inc.
    5D15-4180
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Her-nando)


text:
    Ferry v. Bank of New York Mellon
    5D15-3702
    05/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Fitch v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.
    5D16-1619
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Fonseca v. State
    5D16-235
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Garcia v. State
    5D16-2739
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Seminole)


text:
    Gendron v. State
    5D16-2576
    06/02/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Citrus)


text:
    German v. State
    5D17-94
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Graham v. State
    5D17-113
    05/22/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Grant v. Branch Banking and Trust Company
    5D16-197
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    H.D.E. v. State
    5D16-2628
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Hall v. Department of Corrections
    5D16-2904
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Harris v. State
    5D17-625
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Hart v. State
    5D16-1390
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Hayward v. State
    5D16-3927
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Hodges v. State
    5D16-1638
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Hoffa v. State
    5D16-2269, 5D16-2270
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Investor Trustee Services, LLC v. DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc.
    5D15-3082
    04/07/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Ivey v. State
    5D16-3571
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Osceola)


text:
    Jackson v. State
    5D16-1786
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Janes v. Janes ex rel. B.J.A.
    5D16-3148
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Jeffus v. State
    5D16-3957
    05/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Jenkins v. State
    5D16-2226
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Johnson v. State
    5D16-1056
    05/15/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St, Johns)


text:
    Johnson v. State
    5D16-4108
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Lake)


text:
    Johnson v. State
    5D17-176
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Sumter)


text:
    Jones v. State
    5D16-3099
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Marion)


text:
    Kelley v. Kelley
    5D16-2052
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Kingsley v. State
    5D16-4283
    05/22/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Orange)


text:
    Lariscy v. State
    5D15-4006
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Volu-sia)


text:
    Lauer v. State
    5D15-3356
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Orange)


text:
    Lee v. State
    5D17-227
    06/02/2017
   Aff.

Cir, Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Lorrison v. State
    5D16-4106
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Seminole)


text:
    M.A.S. v. K.B.W.
    5D16-2611
    04/18/2017
   Aff,

Cir. Ct. (Osceola)


text:
    M.B. v. Department of Children and Families
    5D16-4334
    04/26/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Her- . nando)


text:
    Maldonado v. State
    5D17-288
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Osceola)


text:
    Marshall v. State
    5D17-644
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Citrus)


text:
    Martin v. State
    5D16-3983
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Citrus)


text:
    Masters v. State
    5D16-3499
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Putnam)


text:
    Masters v. State
    5D16-4072
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Johns)


text:
    McGill v. State
    5D17-157
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Marion)


text:
    McNair v. State
    5D16-3734
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Marion)


text:
    Merrill v. State
    5D16-1681
    05/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Fla-gler)


text:
    Mitchell v. State
    5D16-1499
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Moradi v. State
    5D16-150
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Morehouse v. State
    5D16-2991
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Morgan v. State
    5D16-1533
    05/03/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Murphy v. Christiana Trust, a Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB for Normandy Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2013-18
    5D16-2854
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Seminole)


text:
    Nelson v. State
    5D17-12
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Putnam)


text:
    Norfleet v. State
    5D16-4468
    05/17/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    O’Harrow v. State
    5D16-2793
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Oursler v. State
    5D16-2328
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Pagoadaruiz v. State
    5D16-4184
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Panzl & Company, P.A. v. Martinez
    5D15-3853
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Pardieu v. Pardieu
    5D16-3465
    05/03/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Parks v. Equity Trust Company
    5D16-3331
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Paul v. State
    5D16-4274
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Putnam)


text:
    Peck v. State
    5D17-539
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Seminole)


text:
    Persaud v. State
    5D16-4349
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lake)


text:
    Peterson v. Department of Corrections
    5D16-4027
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Peterson v. State
    5D17-546
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Petry v. State
    5D16-1555
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Phillips v. State
    5D16-2202
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Fla-gler)


text:
    Plowman v. State
    5D17-135
    04/04/2017
   Aff,

Cir. Ct. (Her-nando)


text:
    Poitras v. State
    5D16-4255
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Osceola)


text:
    Presley v. State
    5D16-1010
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Presutti v. State
    5D16-2565
    05/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Marion)


text:
    Reyes v. State
    5D16-831
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Marion)


text:
    Rivera v. State
    5D17-256
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Seminole)


text:
    Rolle v. State
    5D17-233
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Romero v. State
    5D16-4412
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    S.W. v. Department of Children and Families
    5D16-3124
    04/12/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Sasseen v. Sasseen
    5D16-15
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Johns)


text:
    Schrembs v. State
    5D16-3913
    06/07/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lake)


text:
    Scott v. State
    5D16-1895
    05/10/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Silver Springs Moose Lodge No. 1199, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc. v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco
    5D16-858
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

DBPR


text:
    Simmons v. State
    5D16-3517
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Sims v. State
    5D16-1651
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Seminole)


text:
    Smith v. State
    5D17-158
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Marion)


text:
    Smith v. State
    5D17-494
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Sosa v. State
    5D16-3311
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Tampa Chiropractic Center, Inc.
    5D16-24
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Story v. State
    5D16-2441
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Sutton v. State
    5D16-2627
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Swett v. State
    5D16-3351
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Taylor v. State
    5D17-398
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Terry v. Department of Corrections
    5D17-397
    05/24/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Thomas v. State
    5D16-3774
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Thomas v. State
    5D15-3779
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Seminole)


text:
    Thomas v. State
    5D16-1535
    06/29/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Thomas v. State
    5D16-3966
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Tomlinson v. Tomlinson
    5D16-1655
    05/08/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Osceola)


text:
    Toucet v. Spartan Staffing, LLC
    5D16-491, 5D16-1973
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    Ulbin v. State
    5D16-226
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Seminole)


text:
    Victory v. State
    5D16-4133
    06/01/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    W.G. v. State
    5D16-2479
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    W.S. v. Department of Children and Families
    5D17-111
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Wagner v. State
    5D16-3682
    06/01/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Seminole)


text:
    Waters v. State
    5D16-4346
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Weathers v. State
    5D17-543
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Citrus)


text:
    Whaley v. State
    5D16-4124
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Citrus)


text:
    White v. State
    5D16-633
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Orange)


text:
    White v. State
    5D17-245
    04/18/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Citrus)


text:
    Whited Equity v. U.S. Bank National Association
    5D16-824
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Seminole)


text:
    Williams v. State
    5D17-524
    04/04/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bre-vard)


text:
    Williams v. State
    5D16-2723
    04/11/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


text:
    Williams v. State
    5D15-4513
    04/25/2017
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Volu-sia)


author: Cynamon, Abby, Associate Judge.

text:
    Timothy HUNTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D15-4475
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [August 16, 2017]
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   Cynamon, Abby, Associate Judge.

Appellant appeals from his convictions entered after a jury found him guilty of attempted burglary and driving without a valid drivers’ license. Appellant raises several issues on appeal, only one of which we address here, as it is dispositive. Appellant asserts that the trial court reversibly erred when it allowed the state to use peremptory strikes on two African American jurors, Ms. T and Ms. J, in violation of the procedure articulated by the Florida Supreme Court in Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1996). For the reasons that follow, we agree with appellant’s argument as to Ms. T, and reverse and remand this cause for a new trial.

The record indicates that one of the questions posed to prospective jurors during voir dire was whether any of their family members had been arrested. Prospective jurors Ms. T, Mr. W, Mr. S, and Mr. H each, stated that they had a family' member who had been arrested.

When the state sought to use a peremptory strike on Ms. T, an African American, the defense requested a race-neutral reason for the strike. The reason given by the state was the arrest of one of Ms. T’s family members. The defense challenged this strike, contending that the state’s reason was not genuine, since Mr. W and Mr. H, two prospective jurors whose family members had also been arrested, remained on the jury. In response, the state asserted that its reason for striking Ms. T had nothing to do with her race, but instead was based on the arrest of her family member. The trial court found that the state’s reason for striking Ms. T was race-neutral and allowed the strike. Appellant later renewed his objections to the state’s exercise of peremptory strikes, and accepted the panel subject to his prior objections.

The final jury panel included Mr. W, Mr. S, and Mr. H, who were all non-African American. Thus, three non-African American prospective jurors who stated they had family members who had been arrested remained on the jury, while the trial court allowed the state to use a peremptory strike on an African American prospective juror who had an arrested family member.

Our standard of review of this issue is abuse of discretion. Wimberly v. State, 118 So.3d 816, 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

When a party challenges a peremptory strike, asserting that it is racially discriminatory, Melbourne articulates a three-step procedure that trial courts must follow. First, the party challenging the strike must make a timely objection, must demonstrate that the challenged juror is a member of a distinct racial group, and must ask the trial court to ask for a reason for the strike. 679 So.2d at 764. Second, the party seeking to strike the juror must come forward with a race-neutral reason. Id., Third, the court must determine if the reason offered is genuine or is instead a pretext “given all the circumstances surrounding the strike.” Id.

In the case at bar, the record indicates that defense counsel timely objected, demonstrated that Ms. T was African American, and asked the trial court to ask the state .for a race-neutral reason for the strike. The state then came forward with a race-neutral reason for the strike, namely, the arrest of Ms. T’s family member. Thus, the - first two steps of Melbourne were satisfied.

This appeal turns on the third step of Melbourne. As part of its determination of genuineness, a trial court should consider, among other things, “the racial makeup of the venire; prior strikes exercised against the same racial group; a strike based on a reason equally applicable to an unchallenged juror; or singling the juror out for special treatment.” Id. at 764 n.8.

Florida courts have repeatedly found that it can be “racially discriminatory to exercise a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror in the minority where the proffered reason applies equally to a prospective juror in the majority.” Smith v. State, 799 So.2d 421, 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). For example, in Foster v. State, 732 So.2d 22, 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), we held that the trial court clearly erred in finding that the state’s reason for peremptorily striking two black jurors was genuine, where the asserted basis for the strikes— prior arrests of immediate family members—“was equally applicable to non-black jurors who were not challenged.” In so holding, we explained that “[bjecause there were no other race-neutral reasons proffered to justify the strike, any suggestion of genuineness in the State’s decision to strike these two black jurors was completely refuted.” Id.

Numerous other cases have held that a trial court’s finding of genuineness was clearly erroneous where the record reflected disparate treatment of similarly situated jurors. See Nowell v. State, 998 So.2d 597, 605 (Fla. 2008) (trial court erred in accepting the State’s “age-based justification” for a peremptory strike of a Hispanic juror as genuine, because the state’s proffered reason was also “clearly applicable” to a “similarly aged white male whom the state failed to challenge”); Stroia v. State, 119 So.3d 1274, 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (trial court erred in finding that the state’s reason for striking an African American juror—that family members had been arrested for drug charges—was genuine where the state accepted two similarly situated white jurors); see also Landis v. State, 143 So.3d 974, 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (similar); Wallace v. State, 889 So.2d 928, 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (similar).

Here, even taking into account the trial court’s superior vantage point, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the strike of Ms. T. Because the prosecutor’s only race-neutral explanation for striking Ms. T applied equally to three non-African American jurors whom the state ultimately did not challenge, any suggestion of genuineness is refuted by the record. Indeed, when defense counsel specifically pointed out that there were other jurors who were still on the jury panel whose family members had also been arrested, the prosecutor did not attempt to explain the disparate treatment of Ms. T in comparison with similarly situated jurors. Nor did the prosecutor otherwise advance any argument that could support a finding of genuineness.

Because we find that it was reversible error to allow the state to peremptorily strike Ms. T without proffering a genuine race-neutral reason in support, we do not reach the issue of whether the strike of Ms. J was proper under Melbourne. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and Remanded for a new trial.

Damoorgian and Kuntz, JJ., concur.

      . The jury found appellant guilty of attempted burglary as a lesser included offense of burglary of a dwelling. The trial court ultimately entered a judgment adjudicating appellant guilty of burglary of a dwelling, but it appears that the trial court intended to adjudicate appellant guilty of attempted burglary of a dwelling.

      . Because we are reversing for a new trial, we decline to reach appellant’s argument that the trial court should have adjudicated him guilty of attempted burglary of a structure, where the jury found him guilty only of attempted burglary and never affirmatively found that the attempted burglary was of a dwelling. We also decline to address the appropriate charge on remand as to Count I.


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    Charlie Benjamin RAWLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-665
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [August 16, 2017]
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and J. Woodson Isom, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

Charlie B. Rawls appeals the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion. The appellant was sentenced to life in prison for a 1969 burglary offense. He now contends that his offense was punishable by a' maximum of twenty years in prison, and therefore, that his life sentence is illegal. We agree' with appellant based on the information, the jury’s verdict, the written judgment, and the applicable statute. As a result, we reverse and remand for resentencing.

The information charged appellant in a single count with “break[ing] and .entering] a dwelling house ... with intent, to commit a felony therein, to-wit: Rape, contrary to F.S. 810.01.” The information did not reference a specific subsection of section 810.01, Florida Statutes (1967), to indicate whether appellant was charged with burglary of a dwelling under subsection (2), which was punishable by twenty years in prison, or charged under subsection (1), which set forth an aggravated burglary offense punishable by life imprisonment. See § 810.01, Fla. Stat. (1967). Nevertheless, as discussed below, the language of the information plainly charged appellant with the lesser burglary offense under subsection (2).

At trial, the jury found appellant guilty as charged in the information. The verdict form and judgment reflect that appellant was convicted of “BREAKING AND ENTERING A DWELLING HOUSE WITH INTENT TO COMMIT A FELONY, TO-WIT: RAPE.” The trial court sentenced appellant to life in prison with the possibility of parole. Although appellant was paroled at one point, he was later re-imprisoned.

In 2017, appellant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence contending that his life sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for his offense. His claim was based on the foregoing documents and the applicable burglary statute. The 1967 version of the statute provided;

(1) Whoever breaks and enters a dwelling house, or any building or structure within the curtilage of a dwelling house though not forming a part thereof, with intent to commit a felony, or after having entered with such intent breaks such dwelling house or other building or structure aforesaid, if he be armed with a dangerous weapon, or have with him any nitroglycerine, dynamite, gunpowder or other high explosive- at the time of breaking and entering, or if he arm himself with a' dangerous weapon, or take into his possession any such high explosive within such building, or if he make an assault upon any person lawfully therein, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life, or for such term of years as may be determined by the court,
(2) If the offender be not armed, nor arm himself with a dangerous weapon as aforesaid, nor have with him nor take into his possession ahy high explosive as aforesaid, nor make an assault upon any person lawfully in said building, he shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding twenty years.

§ 810.01, Fla. Stat. (1967) (emphases added), repealed by Ch. 74-383, § 66, Laws of Fla. See also Ch. 74-383, § 31, Laws of Fla. (reorganizing this. burglary statute into three subsections and moving it to section 810.02). Because appellant was neither charged with. nor convicted of any aggravating circumstances during the burglary, such as being armed or committing an assault, he reasoned that his conviction fell under subsection (2), and that his prison sentence should have been capped at twenty years.

The, trial court denied appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion based on the State’s contention that he had been properly charged, convicted, and sentenced under subsection (1). Noting the information alleged that appellant committed the burglary with the intent to commit rape—and the jury so found—the court determined that the intended rape constituted the assault necessary to sustain a conviction and sentence under subsection (1).

However, as appellant points out on appeal, the trial court wrongly equated the intent.to- commit a rape (or an assault) with the actual commission of an Assault. See Cochenet v. State, 445 So.2d 398, 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (emphasis omitted) (“[T]he amended information charged [defendant] entered the trailer with the intent to commit aggravated assault; it did not allege that the assault actually occurred.”). Here, appellant was charged, found guilty, and convicted of the lesser burglary offense under subsection (2), that is, burglary of a dwelling with intent to commit a felony. No aggravating circumstances were alleged or submitted to the jury, as would be required to obtain a conviction under subsection (l)- See § 810.01(1), Fla. Stat. (1967) (setting' forth the aggravating circumstances fora burglary, including: the possession of a dangerous weapon, the possession of a high explosive, and the assault of a person lawfully in the dwelling).

That the intended felony is a rape or assault does not alter the analysis where it is not alleged that the burglar actually committed an assault. See Averheart v. State, 358 So.2d 609, 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (reversing life sentence for burglary with intent to commit sexual battery, where information “contained no allegations of the aggravating circumstances”); see also Cochenet, 445 So.2d at 399 (holding that defendant should have been convicted of lesser .burglary offense where information alleged that he entered with only the “intent to commit aggravated assault”). Accordingly, the record in this case demonstrates that appellant was convicted of the lesser burglary offense under subsection (2). His life sentence is illegal for exceeding the twenty-year statutory maximum. § 810,01(2), Fla. Stat. (1967).

The arguments raised by the State on appeal are not persuasive as they contradict the plain language of the statute. We reverse the denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion and remand for- the trial court to resentence appellant .to no more than twenty years in prison.

Reversed and remanded.

May, Conner and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    William PERMENTER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D16-1892.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 18, 2016.
    Rehearing Denied June 3, 2016.
    William Permenter, pro se, Petitioner.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The petition, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

THOMAS, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., concur.


author: EMAS, J.

text:
    METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Jorge PORTER, Appellee.
    No. 3D12-3077.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Oct. 31, 2016.

      Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, Aaron S. Weiss and Steven M. Blickensderfer; Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP and Michael J. Stortz, San Francisco, CA, for appellants.
    Dorta Law, Gonzalo R. Dorta and Matí-as R. Dorta, for appellee.
    ■ Before ROTHENBERG, EMAS and LOGUE, JJ.
   EMAS, J.

On Motion to Enforce Mandate

In a prior appeal, MetroPCS Communications, Inc. (“MetroPCS”) sought review of the trial court’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration. We reversed the order and remanded this cause to the trial court. Metropcs Commc’ns, Inc. v. Porter, 114 So.3d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). In our opinion reversing and remanding, we provided express directions to the tidal court:

The order under review denying arbitration is reversed for a determination after an evidentiary hearing of the threshold issue of whether the arbitration clause was contained in a binding agreement between the parties.

Id. at 348. The mandate issued on May 31, 2013.

Upon remand, the parties were directed by the trial court to conduct appropriate discovery in preparation for the aforementioned evidentiary hearing on the threshold issue. Thereafter, Porter served a notice of taking deposition of MetroPCS’ corporate.representative. Attached to the notice was a schedule which listed twenty-one separate “Areas of Inquiry.” In response, MetroPCS filed a motion for protective order, asserting that eleven of these “Areas of Inquiry” impermissibly exceeded the limited scope of the single-issue evidentiary hearing on the threshold issue and that such discovery, if permitted, would violate this court’s mandate. MetroPCS sought to prohibit Porter from making inquiry into Areas numbered Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Nineteen and Twenty.

At the hearing on the motion for protective order, MetroPCS argued the court was required by this court’s mandate to limit discovery to those areas bearing on the threshold issue of whether there was a binding arbitration agreement between the parties. The trial court denied the motion, indicating “if there is a case filed, [Porter’s counsel] or [MetroPCS’s counsel] or anybody else can ask anything you want during a deposition relating to the case that is filed.”

The trial court’s order denying the motion for protective order was contrary to the mandate of this court. An appellate court has the inherent authority to enforce its own mandate. Posner v. Posner, 257 So.2d 530 (Fla.1972); Wolf v. Horton, 322 So.2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). When an appellate court issues its mandate, compliance by the lower tribunal is a purely ministerial act, and the lower tribunal is without authority to modify or evade that mandate. Brunner Enterps., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 452 So.2d 550 (Fla.1984); Hollander v. K-Site 400 Assocs., 657 So.2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Milton v. Keith, 503 So.2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Our opinion directed the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing which was expressly limited in scope to the threshold issue of whether the arbitration clause was contained in a binding agreement between the parties. This necessarily limited the scope of any discovery to be conducted in preparation for the evidentia-ry hearing. To permit a party under these circumstances to conduct full discovery before the threshold issue is determined by the trial court would be contrary to the mandate of this court and would undermine one of the central underlying purposes of arbitration. See Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Melamed, 425 So.2d 127, 128-29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (observing that the “[s]peedy resolution of disputes is the raison d’etre of arbitration. Once parties agree to arbitrate, it is essential that they have an easy and quick means enforce their agreement to arbitrate.”)

We need not belabor the point by restating each of the eleven Areas of Inquiry to which MetroPCS objected. Suffice it to say that the motion for protective order should have been granted as to “Areas of Inquiry” numbered Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Nineteen and Twenty.

The order denying the motion for protection order is quashed. We remand this cause to the trial court, as before, with directions to conduct a limited evidentiary hearing on the threshold issue of whether the arbitration clause was contained in a binding agreement between the parties. Any further discovery to be conducted for purposes of that evidentiary hearing shall be limited to this threshold issue. This opinion shall take effect immediately, notwithstanding the filing or disposition of any motion for rehearing.

Order quashed. Cause remanded with directions.

      . In his response to the motion to enforce mandate, Porter contends only that discovery should be permitted into Areas of Inquiry numbered Eight, Nine and Ten. Porter's response wholly failed to address Areas of Inquiry numbered Eleven, Twelve, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Nineteen and Twenty, apparently abandoning any contention that these Areas of Inquiry were within the proper scope of the limited discovery to be conducted in advance of the evidentiary hearing directed by our mandate.


text:
    John J. WILSON, Jr., Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 3D16-906.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Nov. 9, 2016.

      John J. Wilson, Jr., in proper person.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for respondent.
    Before ROTHENBERG, SALTER and SCALES, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Order on Motion for Clarification of Order Dismissing Petition Seeking Belated Appeal

. While not entirely clear from the limited record petitioner John J. Wilson, Jr. has provided us, it appears that Wilson is seeking to recover from Miami-Dade County the sum of $8,520 impounded by police in January of 2004 when Wilson and his code-fendant John D’Ambro were arrested. Wilson was charged with trafficking cocaine, conspiracy to traffic cocaine and money, laundering (criminal case number F04-753B).

It appears that forfeiture proceedings were initiated against the impounded funds in civil forfeiture case number 04-03992-CA-23 and, on May 18, 2004, a final judgment forfeiting those funds to the Miami-Dade Police Department Law Enforcement Trust Fund was entered.

The record reflects that some eight years later, on' or about June 8, 2012, Wilson was acquitted of the charges in criminal ease number F04-753B. On June 19, 2012, Wilson filed a motion in his criminal case for return of property (presumably seeking the return of the $8,520 that was the subject of the judgment in the forfeiture case). The judgment of acquittal was entered on July 3, 2012,' and, shortly thereafter, the trial court in the criminal case entered a July 5, 2012 .order presumably granting Wilson’s June 19, 2012 motion seeking the return of his property.

More than two years later, on December 8, 2014, Miami-Dade County filed a motion in-criminal case number, F04-753B seeking to vacate the trial' court’s July 5, 2012 order.' The record does not reflect whether the trial court ever ruléd on this motion.

In April of 2016, Wilson filed a petition with this Court titled “Petition for Belated Appeal from Civil Forfeiture,” presumably seeking leave to file a belated appeal of an unidentified trial court order entered in criminal case number F04-753B denying him recovery. In his petition, Wilson asserted, among other things, that the May 2004 final judgment in the civil forfeiture case was entered without notice to him, and without an opportunity to establish that the funds belonged to him rather than to his codefendant John D’Ambro. On April 25, 2016, we entered an. order dismissing the petition “without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to pursue his claim to the funds in the circuit court (including the right to seek enforcement in that court of any prior order upholding petitioner’s claim to the subject funds).”

While unclear from the record, it appears Wilson, armed with our April 2016 order, filed a motion in the criminal case seeking appointment of counsel to assist Wilson in recovering the forfeiture funds. The record then reflects that on July 13, 2016, the trial court in the criminal case entered an order denying Wilson’s motion seeking the appointment of counsel to pursue Wilson’s claim for the funds.' In that handwritten order, the trial court states: •“[t]he Defendant’s issue regarding his request for return of property is moot as any property and/or money 'that was collected as evidence in this case was forfeited in a civil forfeiture proceeding.”

While the relief Wilson seeks from this Court is not exactly clear, Wilson now has filed with this Court what can only be characterized as á motion to clarify our April 2016 order that - dismissed Wilson’s petition. In his October 17, 2016 filing, Wilson asserts, among other things, that he has. been denied access to courts and that the circuit court has “flagrantly, violated this order.” We treat Wilson’s October 17, 2016 filing as a motion for clarification and grant same.

It appears from the record that the property .Wilson is seeking to claim - in criminal case number F04-753B was the subject of a civil forfeiture case (case number 04-03992-CA-23), which' resulted in-a final judgment of forfeiture rendered on May 8, 2004. The record does not reflect whether the criminal court, in entering the July 5, 2012 order some eight years later, had the benefit of this final judgment. By the time the criminal court entered its July 13, 2016 order denying. Wilson’s motion seeking appointment of counsel, however, the criminal court obviously had become aware of this final -judgment ■ and referenced the same in that July 13,2016 order.

Our April 25, 2016 dismissal order merely denied the relief requested by Wilson (i.e., to file a belated appeal of some unidentified order entered in the criminal case). Our order specified that this Court’s dismissal of the petition was without prejudice to Wilson attempting to claim the funds by challenging the May 2004 final judgment in the civil forfeiture case number 04-03992-CA-23. Our order indicated that any such challenge should be filed in that civil forfeiture case, rather than by continued filings in Wilson’s criminal qase (F04-753B). Our order obviously did not, and we do not now, comment or opine on the merits of any such challenge or on the enforceability or validity of the July 5, 2012 order entered in the criminal case.

To the extent that Wilson’s October 17, 2016 filing requests any additional relief from' this.. Court, we deny such request.

      . A copy of this motion is not, in the record provided by Wilson.

      . A copy of this order is hot in the record provided by Wilson.

      .Despite the filing of this motion in Wilson’s ■ criminal case, this motion cites, as its basis, rule 1.540(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.


author: SCALES, J.

text:
    Nivaldo MARTINEZ-CASTANEDA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D15-705.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Nov. 23, 2016.

      Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Keri T. Joseph, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
    Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.
   SCALES, J.

Appellant Nivaldo Martinez-Castaneda was convicted in Miami-Dade Circuit Court of armed burglary, two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm, two counts of armed kidnapping, battery, robbery, and violation of an injunction. The trial court sentenced Martinez-Castaneda to life imprisonment for the burglary, kidnapping and robbery counts. Because Martinez-Castaneda committed the offenses with a firearm, the trial court imposed twenty-year mandatory minimum sentences for each of the burglary and kidnapping counts, and a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for the robbery count, pursuant to section 775.087 of the Florida Statutes. Believing that the statute required her to do so, the trial court ordered these mandatory minimum sentences to run consecutively.

On appeal, Martinez-Castaneda challenged two evidentiary rulings of the trial court, as well as the trial court’s imposition of the consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. We affirm the trial court’s evidentiary rulings without further comment. Further, we remand the case to the trial court to exercise its discretion as to whether these mandatory minimum sentences should run consecutively to or concurrently with each other.

On February 5, 2013, Martinez-Castaneda appeared with a gun at the apartment of Evelyn Hernandez and her minor daughter. Ms. Hernandez and Martinez-Castaneda had had a romantic relationship that ended in the summer of 2012, which eventually resulted in Ms. Hernandez obtaining a restraining order against Martinez-Castaneda. On this particular day, Martinez-Castaneda brandished the gun at Ms. Hernandez’s daughter, entered Ms. Hernandez’s apartment, threatened to kill both women, forced Ms. Hernandez to disrobe and dress again, fired a shot into the ceiling, and kidnapped the two women in Martinez-Castaneda’s car to the Florida Keys.

They drove to Key West and back to Miami. Upon their return, Martinez-Castaneda instructed Ms. Hernandez to go to her bank and withdraw one hundred dollars for him. At all times during the trip to Key West and back, Martinez-Castané-da possessed the gun. Upon leaving the two woman at their apartment, Martinez-Castaneda threatened to kill them if they called the police.

The parties have directed this Court’s attention to evolving Florida Supreme Court jurisprudence on the subject of whether a trial court must impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences when multiple offenses arise from a single criminal episode. In this case, the trial court imposed mandatory minimum sentences, pursuant to section 775.087 of the Florida Statutes, because Martinez-Castaneda possessed and used a firearm during the commission of his crimes. The record reflects that the trial court, from its interpretation of the language of the statute, thought it was required to impose the mandatory minimum sentences on a consecutive basis.

The Florida Supreme Court has recently held that, “under the plain language of section 775.087(2)(d), consecutive mandatory minimum sentences are not required, but are permissible, if the sentences arise from a single criminal episode.” Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989, 994 (Fla.2016). Thus, the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Webb v. State, 197 So.3d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). We reverse and remand for new sentencing consistent with Williams v. State.

Affirmed; remanded with instructions.

      . Prior to sentencing, the State dismissed the-two aggravated assault counts and the battery count.

      . The two evidentiary rulings were: (i) the introduction of evidence of uncharged crimes, and (ii) the relevance and prejudicial effect of a portion of the investigating detective’s testimony.

      . Section 775.087(2)(d) provides:
      "It is the intent of the Legislature that offenders who actually possess, carry, display, use, threaten to use, or attempt to use firearms or destructive devices be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and the minimum terms of imprisonment imposed pursuant to this subsection shall be imposed for each qualifying felony count for which the person is convicted. The court shall impose any term of imprisonment provided for in this subsection consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed for any other felony offense.
      § 775.087(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2013).

      . We note that the trial court did not have the benefit of Williams v. State at the time of the original sentencing.


author: LOGUE, J.

text:
    David CHESSLER, et al., Petitioners, v. ALL AMERICAN SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., etc., Respondent.
    No. 3D16-2244.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Nov. 30, 2016.

      McIntyre, Thanasides, Bringgold, Elliott, Grimaldi & Güito, P.A, and Jennifer E. Jones, Richard J. McIntyre, and Johnny Hightower, Tampa, for petitioners.

      Broad and Cassel, and Barbara Viota-Sawisch, Adam G. Rabinowitz, and Joseph H. Picone, Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.
    Before SUAREZ, C.J., and ROTHENBERG and LOGUE, JJ.
   LOGUE, J.

The Defendants below, David Chessler and several companies he'either owns or controls, filed a petition.for writ of certio-rari to quash a non-final order, disqualifying their counsel, Richard J. McIntyre, and his law firm based on a conflict of interest. We deny the petition for writ of certiorari because the Defendants failed to meet the high standard for certiorari review.

In the underlying lawsuit, All American Semiconductor, Inc., as the assignee of the claims of ParView, Inc., sued Chessler and his numerous business entities. All American alleges, among other claims, that Chessler perpetrated fraudulent transfers, conversion, breaches of contract, and breaches of fiduciary duty as the former CEO of ParView.

Chessler was the past president and had sole control over the management and operations of ParView, a company that manufactured, developed,, and leased GPS systems for golf courses. ParView became indebted to All American Semiconductor, Inc., a company that provided computer hardware for ParView’s GPS systems, ParView secured its debt to All American by entering into a series of agreements in which All American was granted a first priority security interest in ParView’s assets. All American now alleges in the underlying suit that at the time ParView and All American entered into these security agreements, Chessler improperly transferred ParView’s assets to himself, his entities, and third parties, to ParView’s detriment.

Richard J, McIntyre, the attorney whose disqualification is at issue here, was .the long-term attorney for ParView. He represented ParView in an earlier bankruptcy proceeding in which similar legal claims relating to Chessler’s potential misconduct were raised. Despite McIntyre’s former representation of ParView, Chessler hired McIntyre to defend him in this matter. All American filed an emergency motion to disqualify McIntyre as counsel based on a conflict of interest.

Chessler maintains McIntyre’s former representation of ParView never involved McIntyre in the pursuit of ParView’s claims against him. But after an eviden-tiary hearing, thé trial court found otherwise. ‘ It noted in'a detailed eleven-page order that (1) McIntyre was hired “to take any actions necessary to recover any voidable transfers”; (2) McIntyre continued to represent ParView after a bankruptcy examiner filed a report identifying ParView’s potential claims against Chessler for wrongful transfers; and (3) in billing records submitted to the bankruptcy judge, McIntyre described the work he undertook for ParView as including “work on fraudulent transfer issues” and “attendance at the déposition of Chessler.” The trial court also noted that McIntyre was likely privy to information he obtained while representing ParView regarding ParView’s alleged payments to Chessler—an issue now in dispute in the underlying lawsuit.

The trial court granted All American’s motion for disqualification, concluding in its. written order that

[a]., conflict of interest exists because McIntyre represented .ParView in the underlying bankruptcy creating an irrefutable presumption that client confidences were disclosed to McIntyre during the course of his representation of ParView, and, as. such, confidences could be used to the detriment of [All American], as Parview’s assignee. This would result in an impermissible, unfair informational and tactical advantage for the Defendants. McIntyre’s representation of Chessler and his related entities would also create an appearance of impropriety, which requires disqualification.

We conclude that the facts of this case do not meet the high standard for issuance of a petition for writ of certiorari of a non-final order. “To support a writ of certiorari, the petitioner must demonstrate that the challenged non-final order (1) departs from the essential requirements of law, (2) results in material injury for the remainder of the case, and (3) such injury is incapable of correction on postjudgment appeal.” Sea Coast Fire, Inc. v. Triangle Fire, Inc., 170 So.3d 804, 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). These last two factors are often referred to as “irreparable harm.” Id.

The traditional manner of stating the test for certiorari of a non-final order is somewhat misleading because it places the substantive issue before the jurisdictional issue. As Judge Altenbernd recognized in an insightful review of the history of the writ, “a petitioner must establish that an interlocutory order creates material harm irreparable by postjudgment appeal before this court has power to determine whether the order departs from the essential requirements of the law.” Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So.2d 646, 649 (FÍa. 2d DCA 1995). For this reason, the test is best stated simply as: “there are two indispensable ingredients to common law cer-tiorari when sought to review pretrial orders of the circuit courts: (1) irreparable injury to the petitioner that cannot be corrected on final appeal (2) caused by a departure from the essential requirements of law.” Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (en banc).

Here, without doubt, the order of disqualification at issue reflects a potential irreparable injury “because denying a party counsel of his or her choice is a material injury without appellate remedy.” Event Finn, LLC v. Augustin, 985 So.2d 1174, 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). We therefore have jurisdiction and turn to consider whether the order departs from the essential requirements of law.

To disqualify opposing counsel the movant must demonstrate that (1) “an attorney-client relationship existed,” which “giv[es] rise to an irrefutable presumption” that confidential information was disclosed during the relationship; and (2) “the matter in which the law firm subsequently represented the interest adverse to the former client was the same or substantially related to the matter in which it represented the former client.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So.2d 630, 633 (Fla.1991); see also R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.9 (governing conflicts of interest). In a certiorari proceeding, moreover, “[t]he required ‘departure from the essential requirements of law’ means something far beyond legal error. It means an inherent illegality or irregularity, an abuse of judicial power, an act of judicial tyranny perpetrated with disregard of procedural requirements, resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice.” Jones v. State, 477 So.2d 566, 569 (Fla.1985) (Boyd, C.J., concurring specially). Given the findings of the trial court after the evidentiary hearing, the order of disqualification does not constitute the type of essential illegality and gross miscarriage of justice which is the focus of certiorari.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    PETITIONERS’ COMMITTEE, Richard Hazen and Huong L. Tran in her individual capacity and as the designated Representative of the Petitioners’ Committee, Appellants, v. The CITY OF HOLMES BEACH, A municipal Corporation of the State of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-4158
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 3, 2017
    David M. Levin, of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellants.
    James D. Dye, of Dye, Deitrich, Petruff, & St. Paul, P.L., Bradenton, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, BADALAMENTI, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.