text:
    Christina PAYLAN, M.D., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Brian BISHOP and Mark Detrio, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-4015
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    John T. EARLY, III, et al. Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., as Trustee, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-2846
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 08, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Maria MEDERO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-2983
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 30, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted. Dismissed.


text:
    Christina PAYLAN, M. D., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Brian BISHOP & Mark Detrio, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-4300
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Certiorari is denied.


text:
    Frances Jane Moorer SCOTT, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Seale A. MORRER, Jr., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-2700
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 27, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed. Denied as moot.


text:
    Mayur J. MEHTA, M.D., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. REGIONS BANK, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-1584
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 08, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed. Denied.


text:
    Albert M. ROBINSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Ronald E. WOODS, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3113
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 30, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted. Dismissed.


text:
    Jeffrey RUSSELL, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Philippe DE OLIVEIRA, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-1529
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Juan Francisco VEGA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Robert W. GERMAINE, Clerk, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-1312
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied as moot.


text:
    Stacy MOHAMMED, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Kevin HARNANAN, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-0173
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 11, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed as untimely filed.


text:
    The NELSEN RESIDENCE, INC., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. The CITY OF CAPE CORAL, FLORIDA, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D16-5559
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 08, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Sarah MEINKE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-1689
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Jean G. DENIS, a/k/a Jean Georges Denis, a/k/a Jean Denis, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-1664
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    August 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Tiffany Ann MARINO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-4674
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 27, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Kelvin FRAZIER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-4875
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 27, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Darren M. FRAZIER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-1372
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 07, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Belated appeal is denied.


text:
    Patricia UGARTE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. CSM RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC d/b/a Fortunatos Italian Market, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3194
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Anthony Victor LEROSE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3663
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 07, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    Thomas Lee EDWARDS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-4186
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 07, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    Russell Dale FRANKLIN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-2773
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 07, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    Jeffery L. HARRIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3596
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 07, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    James L. MAY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-1264
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 04, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.

Belated appeal is denied.


text:
    Michelle Denise WESTON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-2223
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 04, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Marcos Francisco JIMENEZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3343
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 04, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    Christopher TRAPNELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Abigail TRAPNELL, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-4388
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 30, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Kenold PIERRE, a minor, BY AND THROUGH his Natural Father/Legal Guardian Arnold PIERRE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WASTE PRO USA, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-4395
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 01, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Troy B. HALL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3345
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Belated appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Wilton Eugene SANDIFER, Sr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3403
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Benjamin E. MOORE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3852
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    David L. MCINTYRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-2998
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 3, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Terrance REED, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3684
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Belated appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Uziel BORRAS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, F S B, as Trustee, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3255
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 27, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted. Dismissed.


text:
    Alan Boyd CURTIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Jane DOE, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3314
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 19, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    L.R., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-263
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed July 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Susan GALANTE, Appellant, v. Timothy GIPE, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-26
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed July 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.O., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2691
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed July 05, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Carlos BERTONATTI, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1647
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed September 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    NRG HOME SALES.COM, INC., et al., Appellants, v. DISTINGUISHED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2201
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed July 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mary D. BENITEZ, Appellant, v. Jorge L. BENITEZ, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2176
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed July 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Donna CIESLAK, Appellant, v. OCEAN VICTORY, LLC, et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D17-2042
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed July 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Carlos MESA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1358
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed July 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ronald BLOOM and Marta Bloom, Appellants, v. SOUTH RAYFIELD, LLC, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-0948
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed July 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Isiah EL-AMIN, et al., Appellants, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-862
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed July 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    David IRIZARRY, a/k/a David Irizarry Sr., and Rochelle Irizarry, Appellants, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1443
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed July 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    SOLER AND SON ROOFING, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, Appellee.
    No. 3D16-2917
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed July 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Shawn DARLING, Appellant, v. Shaquille O'NEAL, Appellee.
    No. 3D16-2804
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed July 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Frank YOUNG, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-241
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 11, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    DYNAMIC PUBLIC ADJUSTERS, INC., Appellant, v. KEY WEST BEACH CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION NO. 1, INC., et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D17-263
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed March 21, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    William KNIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1239
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed March 14, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Billy Lamont CULPEPPER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-318
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 25, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Earl MURRAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-3
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 25, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Nelson VIERA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2082
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 11, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher T. MYLES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1847
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 11, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Anibal San ANTONIO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-0374
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 25, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Teddy GARCIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-433
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 25, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lucious K. THOMAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-408
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 25, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Cosme VALDES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-385
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 25, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    José YEYILLE, Appellant, v. Armandina ACOSTA-LEON, et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D17-2605
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    William DESAMOURS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2287
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    ANJ OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC, Gerardo Valdes, M.D., and Dr. Valdes Weight Loss, LLC, Appellants, v. JDJ OF MIAMI, INC., Appellee.
    Nos. 3D17-527 3D16-2848
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 25, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Dexter DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1237
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tajhon WILSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-568
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Recondall L. WIGGINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-0512
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 9, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Eric D. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-506
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 9, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kenneth COPELAND, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-619
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Hugh KUNSELMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-525
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Andrew LOVE a.k.a. Samuel Jackson, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-380
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Eduardo CASTILLO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2510
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 9, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Andres CANINO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2129
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 9, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Johnny HAUGABOOK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1139
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Victor GARRETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-536
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Yoel PADRON-GARCIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2284
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Juan Carlos ORGE, Appellant, v. Arianna GRIJALBA, et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D17-141
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 23, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Charlene BARRETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1843
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 16, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Raymond JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-261
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Albert COOPER Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1270
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mark SUBLETTE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2147
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 30, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jorge Lopez VERGARA, Appellant, v. Erick VAIANA and Elizabeth Borjas, Appellees.
    No. 3D17-1072
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 23, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Fidel Lorenzo LANDEIRO, Appellant, v. U.S. IMPACT SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee.
    No. 3D17-0031
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 23, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Carl ERICKSON, etc., Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D17-1234
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 23, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Steve AUSTIN Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-766
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed June 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jesus MAQUEIRA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-0699
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed June 06, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rene S. RAMOS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-552
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed June 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Samuel SILVA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-59
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed June 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Thomas ROLLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Nos. 3D18-841 & 3D18-840
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed June 13, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rickey TARVER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2232
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed June 6, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Selwyn Don TITUS, Appellant, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2174
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed June 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Trayevon BRAYE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1359
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed June 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Terrence BARNES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-0239
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed June 20, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Juan Jose JIMENEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2250
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed June 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher ORTIZ and Nationwide Parts & Hardware, Inc., Appellants, v. STRYBUC REPLACEMENT HARDWARE, LLC, etc., Appellee.
    No. 3D16-1723
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed June 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    B.J., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2738
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed June 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    C.T., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2645
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed June 20, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Andres Felipe MONTOYA, Appellant, v. YUHAN SHANG, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-0847
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed June 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    John J. WILSON, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2179
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed June 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gregory NUNN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3109
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 24, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lawrence T. REID, Jr., Appellant, v. GUARDIANSHIP OF Margaret REID, Incapacitated Ward, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2025
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 17, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Miguel A. QUINONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D15-3809
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 10, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Victor ISME, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-577
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 3, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert Lee HALL, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-888
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 7, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Antwan G. HAGGINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-404
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    June 7, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Eric L. WILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-690
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 7, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joseph BROWN III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2291
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    May 31, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Samuel Edward ODOM, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-599
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 14, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    68 YACHT CLUB LAND TRUST, Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Milan Daniel Boyanich, Covered Bridge Condominium Association, Inc., Scott Goldstein, and Tony Torres, Appellees.
    No. 4D18-188
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 14, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    David LOPEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-497
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 14, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Danielle Marie PRUITT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-585
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 14, 2014]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Andrew MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-805
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 14, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jermain T. CARTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1467
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 14, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Adalberto LOPEZ, Appellant, v. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS and inSync Staffing Inc., Appellees.
    No. 4D18-458
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 14, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Booker T. TRAVIS Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-601
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 14, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kenneth Lee BELVIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Nos. 4D17-0578 4D17-0579
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 21, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sergio Chavez DIAZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-1063
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 21, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    M.L., The Mother, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-0482
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 19, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    C.P., the mother, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and Guardian ad Litem Program, Appellees.
    No. 4D18-782
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 19, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    U.S. BANK N.A., as Trustee F/B/O HOLDERS OF STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II, INC., Bear Stearns ALT-A Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-3, Appellant, v. Sandra HENRY and Taharra Assets 5545, Inc., Appellees.
    No. 4D17-2324
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 21, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Fedlin LIMAGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2203
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 21, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Daniel Thomas WEAVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3256
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 21, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    D.J.F., the father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.
    No. 4D18-1120
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 21, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Juan C. Velasquez ANDRES, Appellant, v. Maura Godinez PEREZ, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-691
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 21, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert Phillipe BIANCHI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2598
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 21, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Romero ORTIZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3508
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 21, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Z.F., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2600
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 28, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James L. HARPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2978
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 28, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher SALTZBURG, Appellant, v. Julie RONAN, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3052
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 28, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jessica R. HAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2984
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 21, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Brett HABER, Appellant, v. Todd W. KLISTON, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3317
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 28, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Leanna HORNE, Appellant, v. Jason COLBERG, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3345
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 28, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Loreto G. FETTA, Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC., Cypress Cove of Margate Homeowners Association, Inc., GE Money Bank f/k/a GE Capital Consumer Card Company, Oscar K. Johnson, as Successor Trustee for the Mary V. Blythe Revocable Trust Dated July 6, 1989, Appellees.
    No. 4D17-2850
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 28, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mushtaq Ahmed MIAN and Yasmin Mushtaq Mian, Appellants, v. HERRON BAY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC., Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3147
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 28, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jaycobby R. DUKES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3990
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 28, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    William Jamaar SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-1554
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 28, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Andrew M. DANIELS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Nos. 4D17-2061 4D17-2113
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [June 28, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gerald NAICO, Appellant, v. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3098
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [July 5, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Richard PETROCINE and Ammie Petrocine, Appellants, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, and U.S. Bank National Association, not in its individual capacity but solely as Trustee of OWS Remic Trust 2015-1, Appellees.
    No. 4D16-2330
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [July 5, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Luz Elena VELASQUEZ, Appellant, v. WACHOVIA MORTGAGE F.S.B., Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3055
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [July 5, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert T. FROST, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Successor Trustee To Bank of America, National Association, Successor in Interest to Lasalle Bank National Association, as Trustee, on behalf of the Holders of the Wamu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-OA5, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2799
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [July 5, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Scarlett RABALAIS, Appellant, v. SALT SPRINGS RESORT ASSOCIATION, INC., and Bosshardt Property Management, Inc., Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-2520
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    John Robert GACKENBACK, Appellant, v. Roxanne Stella HULSE, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2127
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Gerald DORMEVIL, Appellant, v. Rachelle DORMEVIL O/B/O H.D., a Child, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-982
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Phillip Paul RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-183
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    GREEN EMERALD HOMES, LLC, Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Charles H. Phelps, Bonnie R. Phelps, Clifton Park Homeowners Association, and ISPC, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D16-4052
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    D.F., Stepparent and W.F., Mother of S.G.A.F., a Child, Appellants, v. D.A., Father of S.G.A.F., a Child, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2833
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Floyd D. HORNE, Appellant, v. Dr. Paul STEINBERG and Dr. Marcus Frey, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-2733
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Yolanda Yassazoe EMMANUEL, Appellant, v. LPP MORTGAGE, LTD., Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-767
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Thomas FRAGOMENI and Brenda Fragomeni, Appellants, v. MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP, V.P. Homeowners Association, Inc. a/k/a Victoria Park Homeowners Association, Inc., Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-404
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Edward Jason RAWA, Appellant, v. Lori Ann REESE f/k/a Lori Ann Murphy f/k/a Lori Ann Rawa, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-3303
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Charlene MOONEY and Kevin Westman, Sr., Appellants, v. Terrance L. HORTON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Leland Horton, Jr., Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-3019
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Joseph N. ALLEN, Appellant, v. Leo J. BAKER, Jr., Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-1901
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Charles Nelson MARSHALL, II, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-4075
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 24, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 31, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Abderazak ELOFIR, Appellant, v. Wafa HAMANE, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2276
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 17, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 17, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Frank RODE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3311
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 10, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    William W. MANNING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1346
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Charles M. RAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-540
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 8, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Sonny Leon ABREU, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-498
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 8, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 13, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ernest H. COTTOM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-630
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 1, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 31, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Yolanda ELLIS-PITTMAN, Appellant, v. GUARDIANSHIP OF Curtis J. ELLIS, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1371
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 24, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 31, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jorge CERVANTES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-4016
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 15, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 19, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Douglas A. MULLIGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3879
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 8, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 19, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Edward Robert INGLETON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-83
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 8, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 19, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Carl Alvin WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2997
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 8, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 11, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Nicholas D. ROSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-554
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 22, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 19, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    William GRAVES, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-530
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 22, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Slavario HOLLINGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-525
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 22, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Antwauane BELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-310
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 15, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 13, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ronald HERSH, Appellant, v. Megan MCDOWELL, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-9
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Terrell E. RIVERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-508
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 22, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Patrick H. PAIGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-907
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 22, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Curtis OVLETREA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-898
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 22, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Tony Lamont SANDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1346
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Daniel ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1154
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Nicolas RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-975
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    David F. LEWIS and Kathryn A. Boyd-Lewis, Appellants, v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, Midland Funding, LLC and S & K Portfolios, Inc., Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-5
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ronnie C. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-824
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Tommy SPAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-767
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Franklin GLOVER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-670
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Anthony EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-663
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    John Henry BUFFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-645
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Elizabeth VASQUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-391
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kevin Andrew GUZMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-176
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Diego Jose Bird NATAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-261
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Theotis CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-46
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Carlos CHERIZARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-25
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Eric Rene TIRADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3943
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Abraham OLIVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3928
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ronald Duane THOMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3869
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Alan Sherman WARD, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3857
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    C.O., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3752
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Anthony HOLLIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3742
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Heather Joanne NICHOLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3508
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Nathan J. PRICKETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3415
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Arthur Malone RISH, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3071
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Scott Brian WEIAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2389
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Andrew MARGOLIS, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Lourdes ROBLES, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
    Case No. 5D17-1916
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   CROSS-APPEAL AFFIRMED.


text:
    Frank MITCHELL, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1628
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Christopher Lee CLARK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1359
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Carl T. TATE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1323
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    THANG TUANG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-949
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    John Alexander BARNES, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-938
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    John Alexander BARNES, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-933
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Michael BARBER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-4469
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    James Henry FLOYD, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Successor Trustee to Bank of America, N.A., as Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank, N.A., as Trustee, etc., Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2050
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 12, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Alan ARONSTEIN, Appellant, v. AO PRECISION MANUFACTURING, LLC, Galion, LLC., and High Standard Manufacturing Company, Inc., Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-816
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 12, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Lynie J. GERMAIN, as Trustee of the Germain Family Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust, Lynie J. Germain, an Individual and Craig Germain, an Individual, Appellants, v. Grant O. YOUNG, as Trustee of the Grant O. Young Revocable Trust Dated 9/13/1999, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-707
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 12, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Robert Allen SANCHEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-276
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    L.A., Mother of M.S. and O.S., Children Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-869
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    YAN YAN HEALTHCARE, INC. and Yan Li Parker, Appellants, v. Beverly HUNT and Marva Flagg, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-2757
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 19, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    M.M., Mother of R.D., J.D. and K.D., Children, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1132
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 15, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Thomas BOHNE, Appellant, v. Kylene Bohne PETRIN, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2635
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 12, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


author: Warner, J.

text:
    Donovan Jonathan TILLMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D13-2516
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    August 23, 2017 Rehearing Denied May 30, 2018
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, 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.
   Warner, J.

Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence for four counts of sexual battery and two counts of lewd or lascivious molestation of a minor by a person under the age of eighteen. He raises four main issues as to his conviction, and we affirm as to all, addressing three, as well as his sentence. First, he claims that the court abused its discretion in refusing to allow his mother to sit through the pretrial suppression hearing and trial after the state invoked the rule of sequestration, because the state had listed the mother in discovery as a "Class C" witness who was not expected to be called. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion, given the State's representation that the mother could be called as a rebuttal witness and the fact that this was a familial crime. Second, appellant contends that the court erred in denying a motion to suppress his statements to a detective, which were given without the warnings required of Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The court did not err, however, in finding that appellant was not in custody and thus Miranda warnings were not compelled. Finally, we reject his claim that he was convicted of a nonexistent crime, as contact between the tongue and a sexual organ constitutes sexual battery. We also affirm appellant's sentence based upon Davis v. State,199 So.3d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Appellant, who was sixteen or seventeen at the time of the incidents, was charged with sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation for abuse of his cousin, who was five or six years old at the time of the incidents, which occurred at the victim's home as well as the home of another relative. The sexual battery incidents involved appellant placing his mouth over the victim's penis and having the victim do the same to appellant. The lewd and lascivious counts were incidents where appellant touched the victim's penis both above and beneath his clothes. In two statements to investigators appellant admitted the incidents, although he sought to suppress the more incriminating statement. The victim also made a statement, through a therapist, confirming the abuse. Appellant was convicted after trial of all counts and ultimately sentenced to 31.125 years in prison, the lowest permissible sentence for the charges. He appeals his convictions on various grounds.

1 In his first issue, appellant claims that the court erred in excluding his mother from the courtroom. At the suppression hearing, and again at trial, appellant sought to have his mother remain in the courtroom. The prosecutor objected on the ground that the State might call the mother as a witness and invoked the rule of sequestration. Noting that in the discovery request the mother was listed as a Class C witness, the defense objected to the mother's exclusion. Pursuant to rule 3.220(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, "Class C" witnesses are witnesses who perform ministerial functions or whom the prosecutor does not intend to call at trial, or whose knowledge is fully set out in a police report. Because the mother was neither a witness who performed ministerial functions nor whose knowledge was set out in a police report, the defense argued that the mother was a "witness" that the State did not intend to call at trial; therefore, sequestration should not apply to the mother. Nevertheless, the trial court excluded the mother from the hearing as well as from the trial.

234"The rule in Florida and elsewhere is that the trial judge is endowed with a sound judicial discretion to decide whether particular prospective witnesses should be excluded from the so-called sequestration of witnesses rule." Spencer v. State, 133 So.2d 729, 731 (Fla. 1961). When a party requests that witnesses be excluded from trial under the sequestration rule, then generally, the trial court will exclude all prospective witnesses from the courtroom, in order to avoid the witnesses' testimony being colored by what he or she hears from other testifying witnesses. Id. ; Goodman v. W. Coast Brace & Limb, Inc.,580 So.2d 193, 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Where the trial court exercises its discretion in excluding a witness or allowing a witness to remain in the courtroom, it is the complaining party's burden to show an abuse of discretion which caused injury. Spencer,133 So.2d at 731.

We cannot say that under the rule the trial court abused its discretion in excluding appellant's mother. The prosecutor maintained that he might call the mother on rebuttal, depending upon whether the appellant testified and what he said. While the mother had no direct knowledge of the incidents, she was the sister of the victim's mother. The victim's mother had called appellant's mother when she discovered that her son was abused by appellant. Shortly after that call, appellant texted his aunt, expressing regret for the incidents. Thus, at the very least, the mother must have confronted her son about her sister's accusations. And what he said to her could have been very relevant to the prosecution. Because of the familial relationships involved, the trial court was within its discretion in determining that appellant's mother should be excluded from the courtroom so that her testimony, if necessary, would not be affected by what she might hear from other testifying witnesses, including her sister and the appellant, if he testified.

5 In a second claim of error, appellant argues that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession to a detective. Appellant made two statements to police. The first was to a Pembroke Pines detective and the second to a Coral Springs detective. Appellant filed a motion to suppress statements he made to the Coral Springs detective on grounds that, although he wasn't under arrest, this was a custodial interrogation and he was not read his Miranda rights. The trial court held a hearing and concluded that the defendant was not in custody and thus, the statement was voluntary. The appellate court defers to the trial court's findings regarding the facts and uses the de novo standard of review for legal conclusions. Nshaka v. State, 82 So.3d 174, 178-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Miranda warnings apply only to in-custody interrogations. Ross v. State,45 So.3d 403, 414 (Fla. 2010). In Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568 (Fla. 1999), the Florida Supreme Court explained that determining whether a suspect is in custody for purposes of giving Miranda warnings is a mixed question of law and fact. It set forth a four factor test to determine whether a person is in custody:

(1) the manner in which police summon the suspect for questioning; (2) the purpose, place, and manner of the interrogation; (3) the extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of his or her guilt; (4) whether the suspect is informed that he or she is free to leave the place of questioning.

739 So.2d at 574. The court found that the defendant in Ramirez was in custody at the time his statement was taken. The officers, who already had probable cause to arrest the defendant, took him to the station and interrogated him in a small room, confronting the defendant with evidence of his guilt. Significantly, the court noted that the officers never told the defendant that he was free to leave.

Applying the Ramirez factors to the facts of this case, we agree with the trial court that the appellant was not in custody such that Miranda warnings were required. Appellant was brought to the stationhouse by his mother in the middle of the afternoon at the request of the detective, who had left a message on the mother's phone. His mother remained in the lobby during the questioning. In contrast, in Ramirez, a uniformed and armed deputy came to Ramirez's home demanding production of evidence of the murder and burglary and then asked Ramirez to come with him to the station. Clearly, the manner that Ramirez was summoned for questioning was far more coercive than the manner in which appellant arrived for questioning.

As to the second and third factors, the interrogation of appellant must be placed in the context that this was appellant's secondinterrogation regarding the same abuse allegations. He had already admitted the allegations of abuse to the Pembroke Pines detective, after having waived his Miranda rights. Thus, the appellant knew of the purpose of the interrogation, and the Coral Springs detective told appellant that she had read the report of the other detective. Then the detective began by simply asking the appellant to tell her what he remembered. At no time did she read back to him his own prior statements. She did not confront him with victim statements for the crimes for which he was charged, although she did imply that another victim had told her of sexual contact with appellant. Mainly, she simply kept prodding him to remember the various incidents with the victim. While he was questioned in the interrogation room, and the court considered whether the door was locked, there was no testimony from the detective that the door was locked. And the appellant seemed relatively relaxed at the beginning. He agreed with the detective that he was there of his own accord. Finally, as to the fourth factor, and contrary to what occurred in Ramirez, the detective told the appellant he was free to leave at any time. She even explained to him exactly how he could exit the building, and he said he understood that he could leave, and he did leave at the end of the interview.

In sum, the four Ramirez factors do not point to a conclusion that appellant was in custody such that Miranda warnings had to be administered. The court properly denied the motion to suppress.

6 We affirm the remaining issues arising out of the trial. As to his claim that the court erred in allowing experts to express opinions based upon studies rather than training and experience, the issue was not properly preserved by a specific objection which raised the ground now argued in this appeal. Appellant also claims that the court erred in allowing collateral crime evidence of his abuse of another family member to which he confessed in his statement to the detective. Under section 90.404(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2013), and McLean v. State,934 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 2006), we conclude that the evidence was admissible. Even if either of the foregoing issues were error, we would conclude that they were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given his two confessions. State v. DiGuilio,491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).

Appellant also challenges his sentence of thirty-one years, followed by fifteen years' probation, as a violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clauses, because it is a lengthy term-of-years sentence for a non-homicide crime which he committed as a juvenile. His crimes were committed prior to the enactment of Chapter 2014-220, which revamped juvenile sentencing but expressly made the law prospective. We have already decided this issue against his position in Davis v. State, 199 So.3d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ; see alsoRollins v. State,216 So.3d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). We certify the same question as we certified in Davis:

DO THE SENTENCE REVIEW PROVISIONS ENACTED IN CHAPTER 2014-220, LAWS OF FLORIDA, APPLY TO ALL JUVENILE OFFENDERS WHOSE SENTENCES EXCEED THE STATUTORY THRESHOLDS, EVEN THOSE CONVICTED OF NON-HOMICIDE OFFENSES COMMITTED PRIOR TO JULY 1, 2014?

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm both the convictions and sentences.

Ciklin and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We deny rehearing. As to the sentencing issue, we have concluded in Hart v. State , 43 Fla. L. Weekly D970a (Fla. 4th DCA May 2, 2018), that Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 176 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2010), has not been applied to sentences of thirty years or less. Thus, chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida should not be applied retroactively to an original sentence which does not violate Graham. Although appellant's sentence is thirty-one years, we conclude that it too does not violate Graham and chapter 2014-220 does not apply.

We certify conflict with the same cases noted in Hart :

Cuevas v. State , 241 So. 3d 947, (Fla. [2d DCA] Mar. 9, 2018) (reversing the denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion and concluding that a juvenile non-homicide offender's sentences of 26 years in prison were unconstitutional under Graham as construed in Henry and Johnson );
Blount v. State , 238 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (reversing the denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct juvenile nonhomicide sentences of 40 years in prison and remanding for resentencing pursuant to Johnson ); Mosier v. State , 235 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (reversing the denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion and concluding that a juvenile nonhomicide offender's sentences of 30 years in prison followed by 10 years of sexual offender probation were unconstitutional under Graham as construed in Henry and Johnson ); Alfaro v. State , 233 So. 3d 515, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (reversing 30-year sentences for nonhomicide offenses and rejecting trial court's conclusion that "Kelsey only applied to juvenile offenders like Kelsey who initially received life sentences but had been resentenced to a term of years under Graham "); Burrows v. State , 219 So. 3d 910, 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (reversing denial of postconviction relief and remanding for resentencing where juvenile offender received 25-year sentences for non-homicide offenses).

Hart , at *4.

WARNER, J., dissents in part with opinion.

For the same reasons I dissented in Hart v. State , 43 Fla. L. Weekly D970a (Fla. 4th DCA May 2, 2018), I dissent from the denial of the motion for rehearing on sentencing. I concur in the denial of the other grounds for rehearing.

      Rule 3.220, Fla. R. Crim. P. defines the various categories of witnesses who may be called. Category C witnesses are all witnesses who perform ministerial functions or whom the prosecutor does not intend to call at trial, or whose knowledge is fully set out in a police report.

      In his brief he also claims his stepfather was also improperly excluded, but at trial he conceded that his stepfather might be a witness and could be sequestered.

      Appellant waived his Miranda rights in the first statement and confessed to some of the same incidents as were contained in the second statement. However, the second statement was more detailed than the first and contained appellant's admission of abuse of two other children.


author: Ciklin, J.

text:
    Eugene SCARCINCI and Beatriz Scarinci, Appellants, v. CHRISTIANA TRUST, A DIVISION OF WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, Not In Its Individual Capacity But As Trustee Of ARLP Trust, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-1844
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 16, 2018]
    Brittani S. Gross and Kendrick Almaguer of The Ticktin Law Group, P.L.L.C., Deerfield Beach, for appellants.
    Dariel Abrahamy of Greenspoon Marder, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.

      This appellant is identified in the complaint as "Eugene Scarinci a/k/a Eugene Scarcinci," but the notice of appeal identifies him as "Eugene Scarcinci."

   Ciklin, J.

Eugene Scarcinci and Beatriz Scarinci ("the borrowers"), appeal the judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of Christiana Trust, A Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Not In Its Individual Capacity But As Trustee of ARLP Trust ("Christiana Trust"), and argue that Christiana Trust failed to prove: (1) its standing at inception of the suit and (2) its damages. We affirm the foreclosure judgment but reverse and remand for further proceedings on damages.

Christiana Trust proved its standing at inception of the suit. The original promissory note was introduced at trial. It contained a chain of endorsements beginning with the lender and ending in a blank endorsement by the immediately preceding endorsee. The original note matched a copy attached as an exhibit to the complaint. See Ortiz v. PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass'n , 188 So.3d 923, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (finding that where original note with blank endorsement matches copy attached to the complaint, this is "sufficient to establish that the Bank had actual possession of the note at the time the complaint was filed and, therefore, had standing to bring the foreclosure action, absent any testimony or evidence to the contrary"). The borrowers do not provide any coherent argument as to what evidence they assert is contrary to the presumption of standing raised by the filing of the original note which matched the copy attached to the complaint.

With respect to damages, the principal balance awarded in the final judgment is supported by the loan payment history. Additionally, a significant portion of the amount awarded for escrow was supported by the loan payment history, coupled with the witness's testimony. Although Christiana Trust's witness testified as to amounts owed for property inspection and preservation fees, he acknowledged that he was relying on figures contained in a proposed final judgment that was not admitted into evidence. This was insufficient proof of these damages. See Peuguero v. Bank of Am. N.A. , 169 So.3d 1198, 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing and remanding for further proceedings on damages where witness "merely testified that the amount written on a proposed final judgment was correct," and the proposed final judgment was never admitted into evidence). The witness claimed these figures were reflected in the loan payment history, but that is not apparent to us.

Likewise, we are unable to discern how the trial court arrived at the amounts awarded for late charges and title search expense. The witness's testimony regarding late charge assessments of $41 does not jibe with the late charge assessments appearing in the loan payment history, and it is not apparent from the loan payment history that the borrowers owed $5,905.68 for late charges, the amount provided for in the final judgment. Christiana Trust argues that it established the title search expense through an affidavit of costs contained in a court file, which it claims, without any record support, the trial court judicially noticed. With respect to interest, the witness's testimony regarding the calculation of interest did not result in the amount awarded by the trial court.

On appeal, the borrowers request remand for a dismissal or further proceedings on damages. In light of their request, and where the award for the principal balance and a significant portion of the escrow balance was supported by the evidence, we reverse but remand for the trial court to conduct further proceedings. See Hovannesian v. PennyMac Corp. , 190 So.3d 681, 681-82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (reversing for further proceedings on damages where principal balance, taxes, and insurance premiums awarded in final judgment were supported by competent substantial evidence, but other damages awarded were not). The trial court need not amend the amount awarded for principal balance, but it should amend the amount awarded for escrow so that it is consistent with the evidence of the amount owed for escrow. The trial court may conduct further proceedings to establish the amounts due and owing as to the remaining fees and expenses.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Warner and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.

      The trial court awarded $64,964.88 for escrow, but the loan payment history indicates $64,250.52 was owed.


author: Gross, J.

text:
    Michael FAZIO, Appellant, v. Regina FAZIO, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-1562
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 16, 2018]
    Rocco G. Marucci of Rocco G. Marucci, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
    Paulina Forrest and Daniel E. Forrest of Law Office of Daniel E. Forrest, P.A., Plantation, for appellee.
   Gross, J.

This case concerns the construction of a provision in a marital settlement agreement. The circuit court held that the provision was "clear and unambiguous" and entered a final order consistent with the former wife's interpretation. Because we find the provision to be ambiguous, we reverse and remand to the circuit court to hold an evidentiary hearing where the parties may offer evidence as to the meaning of the provision.

In 2013, the trial court entered a final judgment for dissolution of marriage, which incorporated the parties' mediated settlement agreement (the "Agreement"). The Agreement contained a provision for the equitable distribution of the Former Husband's pension, which provides in pertinent part:

The parties agree that they will each retain any and all IRA/401K plans held in their individual names. Except that the husband has a FRS plan with BSO his employer. The wife is entitled to 50% of the marital portion of this plan through the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. This QDRO will be entered and the funds transferred within the next (30) days. The marital portion is defined as the amount from the date of the marriage through the date of the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage.

(Emphasis added) (the "Agreement provision").

The parties married in 1987 when the former husband was employed by the Tamarac Police Department, where he had worked since 1980. Several years later, the Broward County Sheriff's Office ("BSO") absorbed the Tamarac Police Department. The parties cashed out the Tamarac pension and spent the money, so that the previous accumulation was not absorbed into the former husband's Florida Retirement System ("FRS") account with BSO.

During the marriage, the parties used marital funds to purchase an enhancement to the FRS pension for the years that the former husband worked in Tamarac prior to joining BSO.

The parties disagree about how the Agreement provision applies to the FRS enhancement that was purchased during the marriage. The wife contends that the entire pension is marital because the enhancement was purchased with marital funds; the former husband argues that the purpose of the Agreement provision was to divide the pension 50/50, except for the enhancement portion. He says that to obtain a larger slice of the FRS pie, he paid the wife $100,000 in lump sum alimony and assumed other debts.

In Fazio v. Fazio, 181 So.3d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), we remanded the case to the circuit court to rule on whether there was an ambiguity in the Agreement provision, and if so, to conduct an evidentiary hearing as to the proper interpretation of the agreement. On remand, the trial judge found the provision to be clear and unambiguous and awarded the wife 50 percent of the entire FRS plan.

A marital settlement is construed in accordance with its terms, so that

[w]here the terms of a marital settlement agreement are clear and unambiguous, the parties' intent must be gleaned from the four corners of the document. It is only when a term in a marital settlement agreement is ambiguous or unclear that the trial court may consider extrinsic evidence as well as the parties' interpretation of the contract to explain or clarify the language.

Jones v. Treasure , 984 So.2d 634, 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting Levitt v. Levitt , 699 So.2d 755, 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ). "On review, the appellate court considers whether the contractual provision was actually ambiguous; if not, 'the language itself is the best evidence of the parties' intent, and its plain meaning controls.' " Teague v. Teague , 122 So.3d 938, 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Richter v. Richter , 666 So.2d 559, 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) ). "In determining whether a provision is ambiguous, the court should consider a 'reading of the entire agreement [to] clarify what the parties meant' by including the provision." Id. (quoting Bacardi v. Bacardi , 386 So.2d 1201, 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) ). "A provision is ambiguous if 'it is fairly susceptible to different constructions.' " Id. (quoting Mariner Cay Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Topside Marina, Inc. , 714 So.2d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

The Agreement provision is ambiguous because it is fairly susceptible to different constructions. At the time the provision was drafted in 2013, both parties were fully aware of the facts surrounding the FRS pension and the purchased enhancement. If the Agreement intended to split the pension equally, it could easily have said that the pension would be divided 50/50, a result fully consistent with the purchase of the enhancement with marital funds and the husband's employment with BSO during the marriage.

Yet, the Agreement refers to the "marital portion" of the FRS plan, a wording that suggests that the parties contemplated that some portion of the plan was non-marital. One possible reading of the Agreement provision is that the marital portion of the plan is only that portion attributable to the former husband's time of service with BSO.

Because of the ambiguity in the Agreement provision, we remand to the circuit court to hold an evidentiary hearing where the trial court may consider extrinsic evidence to determine the meaning of the disputed language.

Warner and Taylor, JJ., concur.


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    Jennifer HEARD, Appellant, v. Miguel PERALES, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3115
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 16, 2018]
    E. Christopher DeSantis, Stuart, for appellant.
    Michael Rebuck of Michael Todd Rebuck, P.A., Palm City, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The mother appeals, and the father cross-appeals, a final judgment of child support in which the court imputed income to the mother at minimum wage. The court entered the final judgment after this court reversed a prior final judgment imputing income. Heard v. Perales , 189 So.3d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). The mother contends that the court exceeded the appellate mandate in holding a new hearing on the issue and abused its discretion in imputing any income to her. The father contends that the court erred in failing to impute income at the level of her prior employment or at least at the average median wage of the community. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in the imputation of income and affirm.

The trial court rejected the mother's evidence of her inability to obtain a job because of her need for accommodations in employment. It concluded that she had worked for ten years with her claimed disabilities and had made substantial income, although that level was no longer available to her. It concluded that her job search was not adequate. On the father's claim, the court rejected the use of the mother's prior earnings because the court found that the mother could not duplicate those earnings. It also refused to impute the U.S. Census Bureau median level of income, because the level placed in evidence by the father was not for the year 2014, as the court interpreted our mandate as requiring reconsideration as of the date of the prior final judgment.

The court did not exceed our mandate in holding a new hearing. See Brennan v. Brennan , 184 So.3d 583, 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Moreover, the case was heard by a successor judge, and "a successor judge may not enter an order or judgment based upon evidence heard by the predecessor." Beattie v. Beattie , 536 So.2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) ; accord Alcenat v. Alcenat , 989 So.2d 738, 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

"The imputation of income will be affirmed if supported by competent, substantial evidence." Hudson-McCann v. McCann , 50 So.3d 735, 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Here, there was evidence to support the court's rejection of the mother's contention that she was unable to work. She had worked for ten years with her claimed disabilities, and her applications for employment showed that jobs were available. The court concluded that her job search was not adequate. The mother had the ability to work with her limitations in her prior occupation, and there was no showing that her disabilities prevented her from obtaining a job. The court rejected the father's contention that income commensurate to her income at her prior employment should be attributed to her. There was evidence that because of the circumstances of her termination, she would not be employable in comparable positions in the future. It also refused to impute the U.S. Census Bureau median level of income, because the level placed in evidence by the father was not for the year 2014, the year for determining the income level for the wife based on the prior hearing. The court imputed minimum wage income to the mother. Because section 61.30, Florida Statutes (2014), requires that each parent support the child, we conclude that once the court found that the mother was able to work, the court was required to impute some level of income to her. Given the paucity of evidence to support a level of income other than that rejected by the trial court, the court did not abuse its discretion.

Affirmed.

May and Damoorgian, JJ., concur.

Warner, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Warner, J., concurring specially.

While I concur in the majority opinion, had the father argued that section 61.30(1), Florida Statutes (2014), requires imputation of U.S. Census Bureau median income where the presumption of its application is not refuted, I would have reversed for a new hearing.

The parties and the trial court relied on Schram v. Schram , 932 So.2d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). We explained in Heard v. Perales , 189 So.3d 834, 836 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), the steps the trial court must take in imputing income:

In imputing income, the trial court engages in a two-step process. First, the court must conclude that the termination of income was voluntary. Schram , 932 So.2d at 249. Second, the court must determine whether the subsequent unemployment "resulted from the spouse's pursuit of his own interests or through less than diligent and bona fide efforts to find employment paying income at a level equal to or better than that formerly received." Id. at 249-50 (citation omitted). "When imputing income to a party, the trial court must set forth factual findings as to the probable and potential earnings level, source of imputed and actual income, and adjustments to income." Id. at 249. "The spouse claiming income should be imputed to the unemployed or underemployed spouse bears the burden of showing both employability and that jobs are available." Durand v. Durand , 16 So.3d 982, 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Schram , however, was decided prior to the 2010 amendments to the child support statutes. The legislature enacted section 61.29(1), Florida Statutes (2011), which declared that, "Each parent has a fundamental obligation to support his or her minor or legally dependent child." (emphasis added). Section 61.30(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), modified the determination of imputation of income. That section now provides:

(b) Monthly income shall be imputed to an unemployed or underemployed parent if such unemployment or underemployment is found by the court to be voluntary on that parent's part, absent a finding of fact by the court of physical or mental incapacity or other circumstances over which the parent has no control. In the event of such voluntary unemployment or underemployment, the employment potential and probable earnings level of the parent shall be determined based upon his or her recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing earnings level in the community if such information is available. If the information concerning a parent's income is unavailable, a parent fails to participate in a child support proceeding, or a parent fails to supply adequate financial information in a child support proceeding, income shall be automatically imputed to the parent and there is a rebuttable presumption that the parent has income equivalent to the median income of year-round full-time workers as derived from current population reports or replacement reports published by the United States Bureau of the Census. However, the court may refuse to impute income to a parent if the court finds it necessary for that parent to stay home with the child who is the subject of a child support calculation or as set forth below:
1. In order for the court to impute income at an amount other than the median income of year-round full-time workers as derived from current population reports or replacement reports published by the United States Bureau of the Census, the court must make specific findings of fact consistent with the requirements of this paragraph. The party seeking to impute income has the burden to present competent, substantial evidence that:
a. The unemployment or underemployment is voluntary; and
b. Identifies the amount and source of the imputed income, through evidence of income from available employment for which the party is suitably qualified by education, experience, current licensure, or geographic location, with due consideration being given to the parties' time-sharing schedule and their historical exercise of the time-sharing provided in the parenting plan or relevant order.

§ 61.30(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added). Thus, the legislature has strengthened the requirement that each party must contribute to the support of his or her child as a fundamental responsibility of parenthood. Therefore, it is the court's obligation to impute income as necessary, where a court finds that a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.

Furthermore, the legislature created a rebuttable presumption that a default amount of income-U.S. Census Bureau median income for full time workers-must be imputed when the evidence is insufficient for the court to make an individualized determination of imputed income for the parent. Judges may take judicial notice of the census. See, e.g., Yoo Kun Wha v. Kelly , 154 So.2d 161, 164 (Fla. 1963). In light of these statutory changes, litigants should be cognizant of the application of the U.S. Census Bureau median income evidence as the "automatic" default level of income in cases of imputed income. Because there is a rebuttable presumption, any party seeking to avoid application of the presumed amount of the U.S. Census Bureau median income will have the burden of persuasion.

      The presumption is one "affecting the burden of producing evidence and requiring the trier of fact to assume the existence of the presumed fact, unless credible evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of the nonexistence of the presumed fact is introduced, in which event, the existence or nonexistence of the presumed fact shall be determined from the evidence without regard to the presumption[.]" § 90.302(1), Fla. Stat. (2014).


author: Klingensmith, J.

text:
    Robert Roy HENION, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-1193
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 16, 2018]
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Brad R. Schlesinger, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   Klingensmith, J.

Appellant, Robert Roy Henion, was arrested and charged with felony battery and misdemeanor trespass. Immediately prior to appellant's plea hearing, his counsel reminded the trial judge of the judge's previous statement that he would be inclined to sentence appellant to eighteen months in prison followed by two years of community control if appellant entered an open plea to the charges. After appellant entered his no contest plea, the judge accepted it, and sentenced him to the agreed-upon eighteen months in prison with credit for time served followed by two years of community control for battery. Appellant was also sentenced to sixty days in jail for trespassing; however, appellant's credit for time served satisfied the jail sentence. The sentencing scoresheet was filed later the same day, but improperly included an additional charge of assault in its calculation, which caused appellant's scoresheet to total 38.30 points instead of 38.10. He argues on appeal that the trial court committed error by sentencing him based upon an incorrectly calculated scoresheet.

While we agree that the scoresheet was incorrectly calculated, we find that sentencing was proper because the record shows that the trial judge would have imposed the same sentence on appellant regardless of the scoresheet error. Thus, we affirm appellant's sentence, but remand to the trial court for the entry of a properly calculated scoresheet. See Brooks v. State , 969 So.2d 238, 241 (Fla. 2007) (holding that when scoresheet errors are presented via (1) direct appeal, (2) Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), or (3) Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, then "any error is harmless if the record conclusively shows that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a correct scoresheet" (alteration in original) ); Montoya v. State , 943 So.2d 253, 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) ("Under the 'would-have-been-imposed' standard, a scoresheet error requires resentencing unless the record conclusively shows that the same sentence would have been imposed using a correct scoresheet ....").

Appellant need not be present for the purposes of correcting the scoresheet on remand. See, e.g. , Thompson v. State , 987 So.2d 727, 728-29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that a defendant need not be present when a court simply corrects a sentencing designation in paperwork without otherwise changing the actual sentence imposed).

Gerber, C.J., and Damoorgian, J., concur.