text:
    EX PARTE Shanga Kenyetta JACKSON
    CR-16-1227
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    Donna Marie MYRICK v. STATE
    CR-16-1251
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Roderick Rashad GIVENS v. STATE
    CR-16-1243
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Natasha COTTRELL v. STATE
    CR-16-1246
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Leon MCGHEE v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
    CR-16-1244
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 26, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE David BLACKERBY
    CR-16-1250
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Robert LITTLETON III
    CR-16-1252
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    Laura Arteaga GONZALEZ v. CITY OF HOMEWOOD
    CR-16-1263
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 2, 2018 Reh. denied March 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gregory D. WOODSON v. STATE
    CR-16-1257
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018 Reh. denied February 23, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Henry L. DAVIS v. STATE
    CR-16-1259
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joshua Mentello CARTER v. STATE
    CR-16-1267
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kevin Lynn LAMB v. STATE
    CR-16-1264
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Larry G. COKER v. STATE
    CR-16-1276
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Carlos Lionel LEE v. STATE
    CR-16-1277
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Roy Thomas SMITH, Jr. v. STATE
    CR-16-1281
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 9, 2018 Reh. denied March 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lededrick Antwon PATTON v. STATE
    CR-16-1273
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jermaine Leon YOUNG v. STATE
    CR-16-1272
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 12, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Ronald Charles PUGH v. STATE
    CR-16-1287
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 9, 2018 Reh. denied March 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Desmond RUE v. STATE
    CR-16-1283
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018 Reh. denied March 23, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael BOLTON v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES
    CR-16-1289
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Bernard JOHNSON v. STATE
    CR-16-1291
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018 Reh. denied February 23, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Hardy Devan TOLBERT, Jr. v. STATE
    CR-16-1292
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Brandon JOHNSON v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
    CR-16-1304
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Glenn Adam BELL v. STATE
    CR-16-1327
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    William Kindred RIDDLE v. STATE
    CR-16-1328
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018 Reh. denied March 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Cary Ondrae MITCHELL v. STATE
    CR-16-1303
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    EX PARTE Bernies BURNETT, Jr.
    CR-16-1299
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    A.L. III v. STATE
    CR-16-1338
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Quartez Lamar WALKER v. STATE
    CR-16-1344
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lisa RADFORD v. STATE
    CR-16-1348
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mark Anthony JEWELL v. STATE
    CR-16-1341
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018 Reh. denied March 23, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rickey CRITTENDON v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
    CR-16-1343
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 31, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reversed and remanded.


text:
    EX PARTE Tony Eugene GRIMES
    CR-16-1346
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Triston Lee HARRIS
    CR-17-0004
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    K.G.P. v. STATE
    CR-16-1354
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018 Reh. denied February 23, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mesiah ABERCROMBIE v. STATE
    CR-17-0008
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael Anthony BUNCH v. STATE
    CR-17-0009
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    EX PARTE Keith L. MARKS
    CR-16-1350
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.


text:
    Marvin TOWNSEND v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
    CR-17-0027
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Leslie Suzanne SPEARS v. STATE
    CR-17-0018
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018 Reh. denied March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James Thomas STIMPSON v. STATE
    CR-17-0017
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reversed and remanded.


text:
    Victor Colton ALLEN v. STATE
    CR-17-0019
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Jeffery HARRIS v. STATE
    CR-17-0024
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Michael Eugene WADE v. STATE
    CR-17-0035
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Myron MONROE v. STATE
    CR-17-0029
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018 Reh. denied March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James Kendall STEWART v. STATE
    CR-17-0032
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Clifton Leon KING v. STATE
    CR-17-0033
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Frederick CARTER v. STATE
    CR-17-0034
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Charles Auther MOORE v. STATE
    CR-17-0047
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Eric Lavon JERKINS v. STATE
    CR-17-0041
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Carlos Benard SINGLETON v. STATE
    CR-17-0040
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018 Reh. denied March 23, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rashad LEE v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
    CR-17-0042
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 1, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Mitchell Bernard JOHNSON
    CR-17-0048
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Kelvin PEACOCK
    CR-17-0049
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 11, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Kashif Tariq MYHAND v. STATE
    CR-17-0053
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Everett Emerson CORNETT, Jr. v. STATE
    CR-17-0070
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 2, 2018 Reh. denied March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    EX PARTE Ronald Eugene ROBERTSON
    CR-17-0057
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. granted.


text:
    EX PARTE Anthony GOLSTON
    CR-17-0067
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. granted.


text:
    EX PARTE Joey GRIZZELL
    CR-17-0072
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018 Reh. denied February 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Charles GRAHAM
    CR-17-0063
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    James MCCONICO, Jr. v. STATE
    CR-17-0083
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Brittany Lafaye KING v. STATE
    CR-17-0085
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Melvin R. BUSH
    CR-17-0074
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Lamont James WILLIAMS
    CR-17-0077
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Mitchell Bernard JOHNSON
    CR-17-0081
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    Billy Wayne TRAMMELL v. STATE
    CR-17-0091
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tony Deanglo JOYCE v. STATE
    CR-17-0094
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    EX PARTE Jerry James BIAS
    CR-17-0090
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    Woodburck NOE v. STATE
    CR-17-0092
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 16, 2018 Reh. denied February 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Eddie L. MITCHELL
    CR-17-0087
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 3, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Jason Murray BLACK v. STATE
    CR-17-0110
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018 Reh. denied March 23, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Derrick Michael STANBERRY v. STATE
    CR-17-0105
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 9, 2018 Reh. denied March 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    EX PARTE SEALED CASE
    (In re: Sealed Case)
    CR-17-0101
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE James Calvin FRAZIER
    CR-17-0102
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    Paul Eugene BAILEY v. STATE
    CR-17-0106
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Charles Edward DRAPER
    CR-17-0108
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018 Reh. denied February 8, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    John Denver PEGG v. STATE
    CR-17-0124
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    EX PARTE Harold S. DYKES
    CR-17-0112
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Joel CALDWELL
    CR-17-0118
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Kevin T. ARCHIBALD
    CR-17-0123
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Ronald Cory LINKE
    CR-17-0126
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Woodburck NOE
    CR-17-0129
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018 Reh. denied February 15, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    Martel DAVIS v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES
    CR-17-0134
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 7, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reversed and remanded.


text:
    EX PARTE James C. MARTIN
    CR-17-0131
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Richard Letray WILSON
    CR-17-0139
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Demetrice HINES
    CR-17-0140
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Petition for writ of prohibition denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Orrin MARABLE
    CR-17-0141
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Eric WILLIAMS
    CR-17-0142
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    Kenneth Rognet WALTON v. STATE
    CR-17-0160
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    EX PARTE James O. WILLIAMS, Jr.
    CR-17-0144
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Nicholas MCCARY
    CR-17-0150
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    Dallas Jerome PIERCE v. STATE
    CR-17-0156
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Michael Dewayne JACKSON
    CR-17-0143
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Henry MARSHALL II
    CR-17-0147
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Habeas corpus pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Clifton HARRISON
    CR-17-0159
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Rodney Lyshaun STEELE, Sr.
    CR-17-0170
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 7, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Marcus RICE
    CR-17-0166
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Rickey CRITTENDON
    CR-17-0167
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Travis D. SIMPSON
    CR-17-0162
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    Matthew Sherman PHILLIPS v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES
    CR-17-0165
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018 Reh. denied February 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Christopher THORNTON
    CR-17-0169
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Johnathan Michael HOANG v. STATE
    CR-17-0177
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Darnell Jarmane PERKINS v. STATE
    CR-17-0180
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    EX PARTE Jeffery Lee THOMAS
    CR-17-0184
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Robert Shawn INGRAM
    CR-17-0186
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    James R. DOWNES v. STATE
    CR-17-0175
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Kevin Lamar CALDWELL v. STATE
    CR-17-0173
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 3, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Jerry Lee MATTHEWS v. STATE
    CR-17-0188
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    EX PARTE Richard Allen YEAGER
    CR-17-0187
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Derek Tyler HORTON
    CR-17-0189
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Rakhem Domonique SHIELDS
    CR-17-0192
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 7, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Jeffery M. HALL
    CR-17-0190
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Gregory T. CREWS
    CR-17-0191
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Carlton Edward CALLOWAY
    CR-17-0198
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Shaeffer COLEMAN
    CR-17-0193
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Danny L. SMITH
    CR-17-0202
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Labarron PERKINS, Sr.
    CR-17-0204
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    Credell EASTERLING v. STATE
    CR-17-0205
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Tammy Roy COFIELD
    CR-17-0199
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Charles Ted HERRING
    CR-17-0201
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Bullock Cir. Ct.


text:
    Stephen Lance LINTON v. STATE
    CR-17-0213
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Danny L. SMITH v. STATE
    CR-17-0218
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Credell EASTERLING v. STATE
    CR-17-0206
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Gary Wayne MEADOWS v. STATE
    CR-17-0207
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 26, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Melvin Ross BUSH v. STATE
    CR-17-0214
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 3, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Enrico Morris CORNLEY v. STATE
    CR-17-0219
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018 Reh. denied March 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    EX PARTE X.D.T.
    CR-17-0224
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Habeas corpus pet. denied.


text:
    Robert Evans LEWIS III v. STATE
    CR-17-0227
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Earnest Lee WALKER, Sr.
    CR-17-0221
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE John Dawson RUDOLPH II
    CR-17-0230
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Roderick WHITFIELD
    CR-17-0225
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Mobile Cir. Ct.


text:
    William Herbert VILLAR v. STATE
    CR-17-0237
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018 Reh. denied March 23, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Len PETTAWAY, Jr. v. STATE
    CR-17-0240
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Derek D. MOORE v. STATE
    CR-17-0231
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Anthony Wayne MCCAA
    CR-17-0235
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Kenneth James JACKSON
    CR-17-0234
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Jefferson Cir. Ct.


text:
    Michael TRAMEL v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and Alabama Board of Pardons & Paroles
    CR-17-0245
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    EX PARTE Alfred MILLER
    CR-17-0248
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Demarcus WOODARD
    CR-17-0249
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Johnny HUGHLEY
    CR-17-0255
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Marlos PARRISH
    CR-17-0247
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Eric ARRINGTON
    CR-17-0253
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Derek Tyler HORTON
    CR-17-0276
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    Barry Virgil ROBINSON v. STATE
    CR-17-0285
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Omahr GREGORY v. STATE
    CR-17-0287
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Aaron Lamont JOHNSON
    CR-17-0273
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    Adrian Adais MATTHEWS v. STATE
    CR-17-0266
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Ruben PEREZ v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
    CR-17-0291
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Ct. of Civ. App.


text:
    EX PARTE Gregory Tavares CREWS
    CR-17-0296
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Melvin RAY
    CR-17-0297
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018 Reh. denied March 15, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Mitchell R. MONROE
    CR-17-0298
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Elmer DENNIS, Jr.
    CR-17-0301
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Adrian K. DUNCAN
    CR-17-0300
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Antwoine D. GRAY
    CR-17-0302
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Dwight PETERSON
    CR-17-0311
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Eric Vernardo ODOM
    CR-17-0321
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Willie Leon BANKS
    CR-17-0322
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Dedric Jamar DEAN
    CR-17-0313
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Dale Cir. Ct.


text:
    EX PARTE STATE
    (In re: State v. Carlos Gonzalez)
    CR-17-0320
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 3, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Marshall COGMAN
    CR-17-0323
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Andrea Duhreal FLAGG
    CR-17-0324
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Kevin ALLISON, Sr.
    CR-17-0326
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to DeKalb Cir. Ct.


text:
    EX PARTE Christopher Mark GRADY
    CR-17-0346
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Montgomery Cir. Ct.


text:
    EX PARTE Dedric Jamar DEAN
    CR-17-0347
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 7, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Dale Cir. Ct.


text:
    EX PARTE STATE
    (In re: State v. Lakiethia Ray)
    CR-17-0340
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    January 8, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Darryl SWINT
    CR-17-0371
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE David SMITH
    CR-17-0356
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Ct. of Civ. App.


text:
    EX PARTE Charles Eugene MOORE
    CR-17-0357
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.


text:
    Kevin JOHNSON v. Commissioner Jeff DUNN, Alabama Department of Corrections, and Corizon - Health Care Provider
    CR-17-0361
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Ct. of Civ. App.


text:
    EX PARTE Ronnie Odell PARKER
    CR-17-0354
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 7, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Clarke Cir. Ct.


text:
    EX PARTE Buford LESTER
    CR-17-0370
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 7, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Baldwin Cir. Ct.


text:
    EX PARTE Christopher LEE
    CR-17-0405
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE STATE
    (In re: State v. Keith Duane Bumpers)
    CR-17-0404
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE David HOPPER
    CR-17-0387
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Etowah Cir. Ct.


text:
    EX PARTE Eugene KELLY
    CR-17-0389
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Willie PICKETT
    CR-17-0391
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Montgomery Cir. Ct.


text:
    EX PARTE Robert W. KELLEY
    CR-17-0422
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    D.E.L. v. STATE
    CR-17-0537
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Charlie Joe WILSON, Jr.
    CR-17-0451
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 14, 2018 Reh. denied March 26, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Brooks Holloway FOLEY
    CR-17-0450
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    February 13, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


author: JOINER, Judge.

text:
    Carlen Demetricke MILLER v. STATE of Alabama
    CR-17-0644
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    September 7, 2018
    Megan Kay Allgood, Mobile, for appellant.
    Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and Beth Slate Poe, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
   JOINER, Judge.

Carlen Demetricke Miller appeals the circuit court's order revoking his probation. On July 14, 2016, Miller pleaded guilty to unlawful possession or receipt of a controlled substance, see § 13A-12-212, Ala. Code 1975. He was initially sentenced to 97 months' imprisonment; that sentence was suspended, however, and he was ordered to serve 3 years' probation. Miller did not appeal his conviction and sentence.

Facts and Procedural History

On January 10, 2018, Miller's probation officer, Eddie Gamble, filed a delinquency report alleging that Miller had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. Specifically, the report alleged that Miller had: (1) committed the new offense of first-degree arson, see § 13A-7-41, Ala. Code 1975; (2) committed the new offense of third-degree criminal trespassing, see § 13A-7-4, Ala. Code 1975; (3) committed the new offense of failure to obey a police officer, see § 32-5A-4, Ala. Code 1975; and (4) committed the new offense of disorderly conduct, see § 13A-11-7, Ala. Code 1975. The report also alleged that Miller had failed to make regular payments toward his court-ordered fees and his monthly supervision fees. As a result of the report, Miller was arrested.

On January 16, 2018, Miller appeared in the Mobile Circuit Court. At that time, he was notified of the allegations against him and that the State was moving to revoke his probation. That same day, the court appointed Lee Hale, Jr., to represent Miller during his probation-revocation proceedings.

On January 31, 2018, the circuit court conducted a probation-revocation hearing at which Miller was present and represented by counsel. During that hearing, the court heard testimony from Raven Harris and Miller's probation officer, Eddie Gamble.

Harris, Miller's cousin, testified as a hostile witness. Harris stated that, on November 11, 2017, she gave a written statement to law-enforcement officers in which she stated that, earlier that morning, her son had woken her up, screaming that there was a fire, and told her that he had seen Miller walk up the ramp to their mobile home, pour gasoline on the ramp, and then set the ramp on fire. Harris and her son fled the mobile home and called emergency 911.

She further testified that she told investigators what her son had told her. She also told them that Miller had visited her home earlier that day, that he had been drunk, and that she and Miller got into an argument over some work that he had done for her and that Miller left her home upset.

While on the stand, Harris stated that she wished to recant the statement that she had given to law-enforcement officers back in November 2017. According to Harris, the statement she gave was a "misunderstanding," and she just wanted the charges dropped so that she could "go on with [her] life." (R. 15.) Specifically, Harris said that her son had since told her that he did not see Miller set fire to the ramp that night. Harris stated that she wanted to testify at the hearing so that she could clear up the mistake her son had made. When questioned by the court about who else was at the mobile home the night of the fire, Harris stated that no one else had been there that day.

Next, Miller's probation officer, Eddie Gamble, testified that he filed a delinquency report after he received information that Miller had committed arson. He further testified that he had learned from law-enforcement officers that the fire at Harris's mobile home had been intentionally set. Finally, he stated that Miller was aware of the terms and conditions of his probation and that Miller knew that his probation would be revoked if he committed any new offenses. After Harris and Officer Gamble testified, the circuit court then concluded the hearing and, at the request of the State, scheduled an additional hearing on February 15, 2018, to hear testimony from another State witness.

At the second hearing on February 15, 2018, the State moved to withdraw all the charges against Miller with the exception of the first-degree-arson charge. That motion was granted. The State also offered testimony from Terry Sexton, an officer with the Mobile Fire Department's fire investigation unit.

Officer Sexton testified that, on November 11, 2017, he was asked to investigate a possible arson at Harris's residence. Upon arriving at the scene that day, he spoke with Harris and received a written statement from her but did not speak to her six-year-old son. Officer Sexton confirmed that, in that initial statement, Harris stated that Miller had previously been at her house that day performing yard work, that he had been drinking, and that they eventually began arguing over the amount of work done and money issues. Later, she was awakened by her son who was screaming that there was a fire, and he identified Miller as the one who started it. According to Officer Sexton, Harris told him that, after her son told her what he saw, she noticed Miller walking away from her mobile home and getting into his pickup truck. She then provided Officer Sexton with a description of Miller's truck. Based on her statement, Officer Sexton tracked down Miller.

Miller did not offer any evidence or testimony in his defense. The circuit court concluded the hearing by stating it was reasonably satisfied that Miller had committed the first-degree-arson offense. On February 16, 2018, the court issued an order reflecting its findings. It withheld deciding whether to revoke Miller's probation, however, until February 27, 2018.

That day, the court revoked Miller's probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his original prison sentence, with credit for time served. The court also noted that, since the revocation hearing on February 15, 2018, the district court had issued an order following its preliminary hearing indicating that it had not found probable cause in the arson case against Miller. On February 28, 2018, the circuit court issued an order reflecting its decision.

On April 18, 2018, Miller filed a motion to reconsider. That motion was denied. Thereafter, Miller filed a timely notice of appeal.

Discussion

Miller argues, among other things, that the State's evidence was insufficient for the circuit court to be reasonably satisfied that he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. (Miller's brief, pp. 15-22.) Specifically, he argues that the State's evidence against him consisted only of inadmissible hearsay. (Miller's brief, pp. 16-19.) According to Miller, the State's evidence against him consisted primarily of the testimony and written statement given by Harris detailing what her six-year-old son had told her about seeing Miller set the fire that destroyed her mobile home. (Miller's brief, p. 17, 18.) Miller contends that, because this evidence was hearsay and was the only evidence presented by the State that actually placed him at the scene the night of the fire, his probation should not have been revoked. (Miller's brief, pp. 18-19.) We agree.

It is well settled that

" ' "[p]robation or suspension of sentence comes as an act of grace to one convicted of, or pleading guilty to, a crime. A proceeding to revoke probation is not a criminal prosecution, and we have no statute requiring a formal trial. Upon a hearing of this character, the court is not bound by strict rules of evidence, and the alleged violation of a valid condition of probation need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt." '
" Martin v. State, 46 Ala. App. 310, 312, 241 So.2d 339, 341 (Ala. Crim. App. 1970) (quoting State v. Duncan, 270 N.C. 241, 154 S.E.2d 53 (1967) (citation omitted) ). Under that standard, the trial court need 'only be reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the probationer has violated the conditions of his probation.' Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 103, 312 So.2d 620, 623 (1975). Absent a clear abuse of discretion, a reviewing court will not disturb the trial court's conclusions. See Moore v. State, 432 So.2d 552, 553 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983), and Wright v. State, 349 So.2d 124, 125 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977)."

Ex parte J.J.D., 778 So.2d 240, 242 (Ala. 2000). In Alabama, "the law is clear that the formality and evidentiary standards of a criminal trial are not required in parole revocation hearings." Puckett v. State, 680 So.2d 980, 981-82 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A revocation proceeding is "a bench trial and the trial court is the sole fact finder." Ex parte Abrams, 3 So.3d 819, 823 (Ala. 2008). " 'It is not necessary in a probation revocation hearing to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence. Rather, the lower court need only be "reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the probationer has violated the conditions of his probation." ' " Puckett, 680 So.2d at 982.

With regard to the admissibility of hearsay evidence at a probation-revocation hearing, this Court has previously stated that such evidence may be admitted at the discretion of the circuit court. See id. at 981-82. It is well settled, however, that

" 'hearsay evidence may not form the sole basis for revoking an individual's probation. See Clayton v. State, 669 So. 2d 220, 222 (Ala. Cr. App. 1995) ; Chasteen v. State, 652 So.2d 319, 320 (Ala. Cr. App. 1994) ; and Mallette v. State, 572 So.2d 1316, 1317 (Ala. Cr. App. 1990). 'The use of hearsay as the sole means of proving a violation of a condition of probation denies a probationer the right to confront and to cross-examine the persons originating information that forms the basis of the revocation.' Clayton, 669 So.2d at 222."

Goodgain v. State, 755 So.2d 591, 592 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999).

Under the Alabama Rules of Evidence, hearsay is defined as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Rule 801(c), Ala. R. Evid. Although hearsay is generally inadmissible under the Alabama Rules of Evidence, there are some exemptions or exceptions to this general rule. See, e.g., Rules 802 and 803, Ala. R. Evid.

On appeal, Miller contends that the only evidence that he committed arson was Harris's testimony regarding the hearsay statements her six-year-old son had made to her about seeing Miller set the fire that destroyed her mobile home. During Miller's probation-revocation hearing, Harris's son did not testify. Harris stated on the record, however, that her son had since changed his account of what happened that night and that she wanted to recant the statement she gave to law-enforcement officers that night.

In its appellate brief, the State contends that it offered nonhearsay testimony to support the arson charge against Miller through Harris's testimony about Miller's being at her home earlier that day. (State's brief, pp. 16-17.) Specifically, the State points out that Officer Sexton corroborated Harris's testimony. Id. We note, however, that Officer Sexton's testimony was hearsay because it did nothing more than relay the same hearsay statements made by Harris. Although we acknowledge that Harris did provide some nonhearsay testimony that placed Miller at the house earlier that day, that testimony is insufficient to connect Miller to the arson. Under these circumstances, the State failed to present any nonhearsay evidence indicating that Miller had, in fact, committed the alleged arson. Cf. Ex parte Dunn, 163 So.3d 1003 (Ala. 2014) (reversing revocation of probation where no nonhearsay evidence corroborated the hearsay evidence linking the probationer to the alleged new offense that served as the basis for the revocation of his probation). Thus, the circuit court erred by revoking Miller's probation.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the circuit court's order revoking Miller's probation is reversed, and Miller's case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Welch, Kellum, and Burke, JJ., concur. Windom, P.J., recuses herself.

      A preliminary hearing was held in the district court as to the arson offense.

      Our resolution of this issue pretermits any need for deciding the remaining issues that Miller raises on appeal.


author: CANADY, C.J.

text:
    FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL POWER USERS GROUP, Appellant, v. Julie Imanuel BROWN, etc., et al., Appellees.
    No. SC18-226
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    June 13, 2019
    Jon C. Moyle, Jr. and Karen Putnal of Moyle Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellant
    Keith C. Hetrick, General Counsel, Samantha M. Cibula, Attorney Supervisor, and Adria E. Harper, Senior Attorney, Florida Public Service Commission, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee Florida Public Service Commission
    María José Moncada and William P. Cox, Florida Power & Light Company, Juno Beach, Florida; and Alvin B. Davis of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Miami, Florida, for Appellee Florida Power & Light Company
   CANADY, C.J.

This case is before the Court on appeal from a decision of the Florida Public Service Commission relating to the rates or service of a public utility providing electric service. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(2), Fla. Const. The Commission approved a request made by Florida Power and Light (FPL) for the recovery of costs through base rates for four solar energy centers expected to be in service by December 31, 2017, and for four solar energy centers expected to be in service by March 1, 2018. These solar energy projects (So) for which a base rate adjustment (BRA) was approved are collectively referred to as the SoBRA projects. In granting FPL's request, the Commission concluded that the SoBRA projects comported with the terms of a 2016 settlement agreement providing for recovery of these costs and that the projects were cost effective. Because we agree that the SoBRA projects met the terms set forth in the settlement agreement for cost recovery, we affirm the Commission's order.

I. BACKGROUND

The starting point of this case is in 2016, when FPL filed a petition with the Commission for an increase in base rates. Florida Industrial Power Users Group (FIPUG) and eight other parties intervened in the rate case. Prior to the Commission rendering its decision on FPL's petition, a settlement was reached between FPL and three of the nine intervening parties-not including FIPUG. The settling parties then filed a motion for approval of the settlement agreement, which they asserted resolved all of the issues in the rate case. In addition to resolving all of the underlying issues in the pending rate case, section 10 of the settlement agreement included provisions allowing FPL to recover costs for certain solar projects if the projects met certain capacity requirements and in-service dates and were demonstrated to the Commission to be cost effective. The Commission summarized the requirements provided in the settlement agreement for recovery of the costs of the SoBRA projects as follows:

There are several conditions that must be met for recovery in this case. First, FPL must request recovery for these projects during the term of the 2016 Agreement, or prior to December 31, 2020. Second, the cost of the components, engineering, and construction for any solar project is capped at $ 1,750 per kilowatt alternating current (kWac). Third, for projects less than 75 MW (as are all of the projects proposed in this case): 1) the request for base rate recovery must be filed in the Fuel Clause docket as part of its final true-up filing; and 2) the issues are "limited to the cost effectiveness of each such project (i.e., will the project lower the projected system CPVRR [ (cumulative present value revenue requirement) ] as compared to each CPVRR without the solar project) and the amount of revenue requirements and appropriate percentage in base rates needed to collect the estimated revenue requirements." If the project meets these requirements, the terms of the 2016 Agreement have been met.

In re Fuel & Purchased Power Cost Recovery Clause with Generating Performance Incentive Factor , Order No. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI at 8, 2018 WL 367863 (Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n Jan. 8, 2018) (footnote omitted) ("final order"); see also In re Petition for Rate Increase by Florida Power & Light Co. , Order No. PSC-16-0560-AS-EI at 2-3, 2016 WL 7335779, at *2 (Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n Dec. 15, 2016) ("settlement order").

Although FIPUG was not a signatory to the settlement agreement, it was given the opportunity to participate in the evidentiary hearing on the settlement agreement but chose to take no position on it and did not present any testimony or other evidence opposing it. The Commission ultimately approved the settlement agreement on December 15, 2016, concluding "that the Settlement Agreement establishes rates that are fair, just, and reasonable and is in the public interest." In re Petition for Rate Increase by Florida Power & Light Co. , Order No. PSC-16-0560-AS-EI at 5, 2016 WL 7335779, at *3.

FIPUG did not appeal the settlement order, but Sierra Club, another party to the rate case who was also not a signatory to the settlement agreement, did oppose certain provisions of the agreement and appealed the settlement order. See Sierra Club v. Brown , 243 So. 3d 903 (Fla. 2018).

We affirmed the settlement order in Sierra Club , concluding that the Commission applied the appropriate public interest standard in its consideration of the settlement agreement and that the Commission's decision to approve the settlement agreement was supported by competent, substantial evidence. Id. at 913, 916. We also noted in Sierra Club that "an independent express prudence finding was not a prerequisite to a public interest finding ... and there was no need for the Commission to make an express individual prudence determination." Id. at 913.

In March 2017, in accordance with the settlement order, FPL filed its Petition for Approval of Solar Base Rate Adjustments (solar petition) in the Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Recovery Clause docket (fuel docket), in which it requested an increase in base rates to recover costs for the SoBRA projects. FPL asserted that the 2017 and 2018 SoBRA projects were cost effective under the settlement agreement because they lowered the system CPVRR in 2017 and 2018 and the cost for each center fell below the $ 1,750 per kWac cap. FPL asked the Commission to find that the SoBRA projects satisfied the cost requirements established by the settlement agreement and that the projects were cost effective.

After holding an evidentiary hearing on the solar petition, the Commission issued its final order, concluding that the SoBRA projects complied with the settlement order and were cost effective and therefore eligible for cost recovery. FIPUG now appeals that order, raising three issues that will be addressed in turn.

II. ANALYSIS

First, FIPUG argues that the Commission erred by failing to conduct a prudence review prior to approving FPL's solar petition. But this argument is foreclosed by the settlement order.

The details of the SoBRA mechanism were set forth in the settlement agreement. FIPUG was given an opportunity to review and challenge the provisions of the settlement agreement yet chose to take no position on the settlement agreement. By failing to object to the settlement agreement's provisions on the cost-effectiveness criteria and the base rate recovery mechanism for the SoBRA projects at the time the settlement agreement was before the Commission and by failing to appeal the Commission's final order approving the settlement agreement, FIPUG has waived its right to challenge these provisions.

Further, even if FIPUG had not waived its right to challenge these provisions, there is no merit to its argument that the Commission was required to independently apply the prudence standard to projects contained within the settlement agreement. While it would have been proper for the Commission to apply the prudence standard to the SoBRA projects in absence of the settlement agreement, we held in Sierra Club that "[w]hen presented with a settlement agreement, ... the Commission's review shifts to the public interest standard." 243 So. 3d at 909. The public interest standard considers "whether the agreement-as a whole-resolved all the issues, 'established rates that were just, reasonable, and fair, and ... is in the public interest.' " Id. (quoting Citizens v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n , 146 So. 3d 1143, 1164 (Fla. 2014) ).

The 2016 settlement agreement, which contained the terms applicable to the solar projects and SoBRA mechanism, is the same agreement that came before this Court and was affirmed in Sierra Club . See id. at 914. In Sierra Club , we stated that "it is neither a departure from the essential requirements of law nor a usurpation of legislative authority for the Commission to invoke [the public interest standard] when no law precludes settlement." Id. at 910. We also noted that "[n]aturally, the prudence of large capital investments is a relevant consideration in the Commission's review of a settlement under its public interest standard because imprudent investments of millions of dollars would likely clash with a public interest finding." Id. at 912. Because the public interest standard itself incorporates prudence considerations, we by no means suggested that parties can use a settlement agreement to override statutory requirements. We rejected Sierra Club's argument that it was necessary for the Commission to independently apply a prudence standard to one of the other projects contained within the settlement agreement and held that the Commission was only required to apply its public interest standard to the settlement agreement as a whole.

If, as FIPUG suggests here, the Commission were later required to conduct a prudence or need determination for the SoBRA projects, it would have had to vacate the settlement order, which is contrary to the doctrine of administrative finality. We explained the doctrine of administrative finality in Peoples Gas System, Inc. v. Mason , 187 So. 2d 335, 339 (Fla. 1966) :

[O]rders of administrative agencies must eventually pass out of the agency's control and become final and no longer subject to modification. This rule assures that there will be a terminal point in every proceeding at which the parties and the public may rely on a decision of such an agency as being final and dispositive of the rights and issues involved therein. This is, of course, the same rule that governs the finality of decisions of courts. It is as essential with respect to orders of administrative bodies as with those of courts.

Once the Commission entered the settlement order and that order was affirmed by this Court on appeal, the parties and the public were entitled to rely on that order and the settlement agreement as being final and dispositive of the rights and issues involved therein. FPL relied on that order by investing in and constructing eight solar energy centers. FIPUG does not attempt to argue that there has been any significant change in circumstances or demonstrated public interest that might provide an exception to the doctrine of administrative finality.

In its second issue on appeal, FIPUG asserts that the Commission improperly based its finding of the cost-effectiveness of the SoBRA projects on uncorroborated hearsay. The record and the applicable law do not support this contention.

Prior to holding a hearing on the solar petition, the Commission issued an order establishing procedure, which set forth the order of witnesses and other procedures for the hearing. The order establishing procedure required that a party "shall identify each witness the party wishes to voir dire as well as state with specificity the portions of that witness' pre-filed testimony, by page and line number, and/or exhibits, by page and line number, to which the party objects." It further provided that if a party failed to object to the specific portions of a witness's testimony or exhibits in the party's prehearing statement, the party was prohibited from conducting voir dire at the hearing absent a showing of good cause.

The Commission held a prehearing conference on the solar petition in accordance with the procedures set forth in the order establishing procedure. FIPUG lodged a general objection to all FPL witnesses being considered experts. The prehearing officer ruled that because FIPUG did not identify the witnesses that it wished to voir dire or the portions of witnesses' testimony that were objectionable in its prehearing statement as required by the order establishing procedure, FIPUG waived its right to voir dire the witnesses and challenge the expertise of FPL's witnesses at the hearing.

The evidentiary hearing on the solar petition was held on October 25, 2017. In accordance with the settlement agreement, the SoBRA projects were taken up as a separate issue in the fuel docket, and the Commission considered evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of the SoBRA projects and whether the SoBRA projects complied with the cost requirements and cost recovery mechanism that were set forth in the settlement agreement. FPL presented testimony from several witnesses in support of cost recovery for the SoBRA projects, including Juan Enjamio, a long-time FPL employee and expert in resource planning, reliability analysis, and economic analysis.

Enjamio testified that the costs of the proposed SoBRA projects would fall below the $ 1,750 per kWac cap allowed by the settlement agreement and he provided an economic analysis demonstrating that the SoBRA projects were cost effective. In completing this analysis, FPL considered multiple components to determine cost-effectiveness, including: solar revenue requirements, avoided generation costs, and avoided system costs. For the SoBRA projects, the revenue requirements included fixed operation and maintenance, equipment, installation, land cost, and transmission interconnection cost. The avoided generation cost component considered avoided generation capital, avoided fixed operation and maintenance, avoided transmission interconnection, avoided capital replacement, avoided incremental gas transport, and avoided short-term purchases. The avoided system cost component considered the factors of fuel savings, avoided variable operation and maintenance, and emission costs savings. FPL's CPVRR analysis assumed that each project had an actual life of thirty-three years, with the analysis ending in 2050.

Enjamio testified that his initial economic analysis concluded that the SoBRA projects would result in savings to FPL customers in six of nine scenarios, with a total benefit up to $ 39 million in CPVRR savings. Enjamio later filed revised testimony to provide an updated economic analysis showing that the SoBRA projects would result in savings to FPL customers in seven of nine scenarios, with a total benefit of up to $ 106 million in CPVRR savings. The emission cost savings consideration did not incorporate CO2 pricing until 2028. Enjamio identified ICF's CO2 emissions cost forecast as a major assumption in FPL's economic analyses. The CO2 cost projections used in FPL's analysis were based on ICF's CO2 emission cost forecast, dated December 2016. Neither FIPUG nor any other intervenor offered testimony rebutting the CO2 emission cost forecast or provided any alternative emission cost forecast. Enjamio also testified that the SoBRA projects met the capacity requirements set forth in the settlement agreement and that they met a reliability need. FIPUG cross-examined Enjamio but did not present any witnesses to rebut his testimony.

FIPUG now argues that the Commission's finding that the SoBRA projects are cost effective is not supported by competent, substantial evidence because there was no expert witness to support the carbon cost assumption in the ICF report and the ICF report was hearsay that was uncorroborated and unsworn. FIPUG also challenges Enjamio's expertise.

We first address FIPUG's challenge to Enjamio's expertise, which fails because FIPUG failed to identify Enjamio in its prehearing statement as a witness that it sought to voir dire, as required by the order establishing procedure. Because FIPUG failed to comply with the order establishing procedure, it waived its right to voir dire Enjamio regarding his expertise and challenge that expertise on appeal.

FIPUG claims that the Commission's finding of cost-effectiveness is not supported by competent, substantial evidence because there was no expert witness to support the carbon cost assumption in the ICF report and the ICF report was hearsay that was uncorroborated and unsworn. This claim fails under the relaxed hearsay rule applicable under the Administrative Procedure Act. Section 120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2017), which is a provision of the Administrative Procedure Act, provides that "[h]earsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions." The ICF report was not the sole basis for the Commission's finding on the cost-effectiveness of the SoBRA projects; rather, it was just one piece of Enjamio's economic analysis, which supplemented and explained his overall testimony about the projects' cost-effectiveness, customer savings, and noneconomic benefits. We therefore conclude that the Commission's cost-effectiveness findings were based on competent, substantial evidence.

In its final issue on appeal, FIPUG claims that the Commission improperly used the fuel clause to consider cost recovery for the SoBRA projects. Once again, this argument is precluded by the settlement order.

The settlement order expressly provided that "FPL will file a request for approval of the solar project in the Fuel Cost Recovery Clause docket." In re Petition for Rate Increase by Florida Power & Light Co. , Order No. PSC-16-0560-AS-EI at 3, 2016 WL 7335779, at *2. The settlement agreement stated that the Commission, on its own initiative or upon good cause shown, may set FPL's request for approval of the SoBRA projects for a separate hearing to be held in the fuel docket. In accordance with this procedure, the Commission considered FIPUG's arguments concerning why it believed that the SoBRA projects should be considered in a separate hearing.

FIPUG alleged that the recovery of the costs of the SoBRA projects through the fuel docket was an attempt by FPL to use the fuel clause to recover predictable capital costs, which is contrary to the purpose of the fuel clause. FPL countered that FIPUG's capital and return on investment costs for the SoBRA projects are to be recovered through base rates beginning on the commercial operation date of each SoBRA project, not in the 2017 and 2018 fuel cost recovery factors. FPL pointed out that the fuel factors to be implemented from January 1 to March 1, 2018, had already been stipulated to by the parties and previously approved by the Commission and therefore could not change regardless of the Commission's final decision on the SoBRA recovery. The Commission concluded that because FPL was not requesting recovery through the fuel adjustment clause factor but through increases in base rates, consideration of the SoBRA projects during the fuel clause hearings was purely administrative. And because FIPUG did not allege that it did not have adequate notice of the issues relating to the SoBRA projects or that it had been harmed in any way by the inclusion of those issues in the fuel docket, the Commission concluded that FIPUG had not shown good cause to set a separate hearing for the SoBRA projects.

At its core, FIPUG's argument here is that the Commission should not have previously approved the provisions in the settlement agreement that set forth the procedure for the Commission's consideration of the SoBRA projects at the time of the fuel clause hearing. We conclude that FIPUG is procedurally barred from challenging this procedure, because FIPUG took no position on the settlement agreement and did not challenge this provision of the settlement agreement at the time the settlement agreement was before the Commission or in an appeal of the settlement order.

Even if FIPUG were not procedurally barred from now making this argument, we would conclude that it is without merit. The settlement agreement and the final order dictate that cost recovery of the SoBRA projects is to be through base rates, not through the fuel clause, and that recovery is only considered at the time of the fuel clause hearing for administrative purposes. Nothing about the SoBRA mechanism changes the nature of what is recovered through the fuel clause.

III. CONCLUSION

As explained above, we conclude that by failing to object at the time that the settlement agreement was before the Commission and by failing to appeal the settlement order, FIPUG waived its right to challenge the provisions in the settlement agreement related to the requirements and procedures for cost recovery of the SoBRA projects. We also conclude that the Commission's findings regarding the cost-effectiveness of the SoBRA projects were based on competent, substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the Commission's final order on appeal.

It is so ordered.

POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, LAGOA, LUCK, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur.

      Section 366.06(1), Florida Statutes (2017), provides that
      [t]he commission shall investigate and determine the actual legitimate costs of the property of each utility company, actually used and useful in the public service, and shall keep a current record of the net investment of each public utility company in such property which value, as determined by the commission, shall be used for ratemaking purposes and shall be the money honestly and prudently invested by the public utility company in such property used and useful in serving the public, less accrued depreciation.
      "It is from this statute that the Commission derives its prudence standard, which it applies to ensure that the recovered costs result from prudent investments." Sierra Club , 243 So. 3d at 908.

      ICF is a consulting firm with extensive experience in forecasting the cost of air emissions and is recognized as one of the industry leaders in the field.


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Mark C. JACKSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, et al., Respondents.
    No. SC18-1531
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    June 13, 2019
    Mark C. Jackson, pro se, Starke, Florida, for Petitioner
    No appearance for Respondent
   PER CURIAM.

Mark C. Jackson-a pro se litigant-filed a petition to invoke this Court's discretionary jurisdiction. By order dated April 11, 2019, we denied Jackson's petition but expressly reserved jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against him. Jackson v. State , No. SC18-1531, 2019 WL 1575238 (Fla. Apr. 11, 2019) ; see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court's Motion).

While his case was pending in this Court, Jackson filed a litany of motions that were frivolous, devoid of merit, or sought relief previously denied in case numbers SC12-367 and SC17-1628. Because of his filing history, Jackson was ordered to show cause why he should not be prohibited from submitting further pro se documents in this Court. See State v. Spencer , 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999) (requiring that a litigant be provided notice and an opportunity to respond before sanctions are imposed). Jackson has now filed a response to the Court's order.

We conclude that Jackson has failed to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. Through his persistent filing of nonmeritorious requests for relief, Jackson has abused the judicial process. Jackson's response neglected to provide any justification for this abuse or to express remorse for his repeated misuse of the Court's resources. We are therefore convinced that, if not restrained, Jackson will continue to burden this Court with frivolous and meritless filings, diverting finite judicial resources from other litigants. See Pettway v. McNeil , 987 So. 2d 20, 22 (Fla. 2008).

Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, letters, or other requests for relief submitted by Mark C. Jackson, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Counsel may file on Jackson's behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith.

No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by the Court.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, LAGOA, LUCK, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur.

      In recent years, we have imposed comparable sanctions on other pro se litigants who have exhibited their disregard for abusing the scarce judicial resources of this Court. See, e.g. , Wetzel v. Travelers Cos., Inc. , 267 So. 3d 978 (Fla. 2019) ; Shirah v. State , 257 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2018) ; Woodson v. State , 242 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 2018) ; Rivas v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 239 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2018).


author: LAWSON, J.

text:
    Derek Lang SHINE, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. SC18-688
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    June 13, 2019
    Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, Jeffrey Paul DeSousa and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defenders, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida, for Petitioner.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, Michael Mervine, Bureau Chief, and Jonathan Tanoos, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, Florida, for Respondent.
   LAWSON, J.

We accepted review of State v. Shine , 43 Fla. L. Weekly D224, --- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 522239 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 24, 2018), on grounds that the Third District's opinion in Shine expressly and directly conflicts with a decision from this Court, Jackson v. State , 64 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2011), as well as decisions from all other district courts of appeal, Lee v. State , 223 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), quashed on other grounds , 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018) ; State v. Milici , 219 So. 3d 117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; State v. Pinckney , 173 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ; and State v. Michels , 59 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), on the issue of whether a defendant is entitled to a de novo sentencing proceeding after an appellate court determines that the trial court's initial downward departure sentence was not supported by legally sufficient findings. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the proper remedy upon reversal of a sentence due to the invalidity of a downward departure is resentencing de novo. We quash the Third District's decision and approve the conflict cases to the extent they are consistent with our holding.

In the trial court proceedings underlying the Third District's decision, Derek Lang Shine, Jr., pled guilty to four offenses and was placed on probation. Thereafter, the trial court revoked Shine's probation and revisited his sentence, imposing a downward departure from what otherwise would have been the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code (CPC). The State objected to the departure and appealed Shine's sentence to the Third District. The Third District determined that the departure was invalid and, consequently, reversed and remanded for "resentencing within the sentencing guidelines." Shine , 43 Fla. L. Weekly at D224, --- So.3d at ----. Shine sought review in this Court based on express and direct conflict with cases holding that a trial court may impose a new downward departure on remand from the reversal of a downward departure. Jackson , 64 So. 3d at 93 ; Lee , 223 So. 3d at 360 ; Milici , 219 So. 3d at 121-23 ; Pinckney , 173 So. 3d at 1140 ; Michels , 59 So. 3d at 1166.

We previously considered the issue raised by this conflict in Jackson . In Jackson , we accepted review of a district court decision to determine "whether an appellate court that reverses the imposition of a downward departure sentence must remand for resentencing within the CPC, or whether it may remand for resentencing outside of the CPC." 64 So. 3d at 91. Observing that "nothing within the CPC precludes the imposition of a downward departure sentence on resentencing following remand," id. at 93, we held that "on remand for resentencing a trial court is permitted to impose a downward departure when the trial court finds a valid basis for departure as prescribed under the [CPC]," id. at 91.

The State contends that Jackson does not govern the remedy for an erroneous downward departure in all circumstances, relying on the trial court's failure to provide written reasons for departure in that case as a distinguishing factor. As the State also acknowledges, however, the trial court in Jackson also erred by relying on an invalid basis for departure in its oral pronouncement. Id. at 91. And, in this context, this Court framed the issue in Jackson broadly, not limiting the remedy question to a reversal predicated on a lack of written findings. See id. Moreover, whether a downward departure is reversed for substantive invalidity or for a lack of written reasons, the reasoning this Court provided in Jackson for allowing a new downward departure on remand applies equally: "[N]othing within the CPC precludes the imposition of a downward departure sentence on resentencing following remand." Id. at 93. The CPC has not changed in this regard since our decision in Jackson . See §§ 921.002-.0026, Fla. Stat. (2018). Our decision in Jackson is also consistent with the general proposition that "resentencing is a de novo proceeding" where the defendant is entitled to "the full array of due process rights" and the parties may present new evidence. State v. Collins , 985 So. 2d 985, 988-89 (Fla. 2008) (citation omitted). For these reasons, we reaffirm Jackson and expressly hold that, on remand for resentencing due to the substantive invalidity of a downward departure, the trial court is permitted to impose a downward departure as long as the departure "comports with the principles and criteria" of the CPC. Jackson , 64 So. 3d at 93.

In accordance with this holding, we approve Lee , Milici , Pinckney , and Michels to the extent they are consistent with this opinion, quash Shine , and remand to the Third District for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAGOA, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur.

LUCK, J., recused.

      Shine also argued that the Third District's decision below expressly and directly conflicts with Franquiz v. State , 682 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1996), on the issue of whether a prior downward departure based on a legitimate, uncoerced plea agreement is a valid reason to depart downward from the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code upon revocation of the probation imposed as part of the prior plea. A majority of the Court does not find express and direct conflict with Franquiz , which held that "a prior downward departure is sometimes a factor but never a guarantee for a subsequent downward departure by a trial court, which must explain in writing why the departure was a factor." Id. at 537. This is because the majority does not read Shine as holding that a prior downward departure pursuant to a legitimate, uncoerced plea agreement can never support a subsequent departure, which would expressly and directly conflict with Franquiz. We have elected not to address this issue, and our decision to only address the conflict issue should not be viewed as a determination on the merits of Shine's arguments on this issue.

      §§ 921.002-.0026, Fla. Stat. (2014).


text:
    Darrell Matthew COLEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3447
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Charles Otto BODIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2927
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Cornell JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2234
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jeffrey E. STARLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4187
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Vinney TRIPP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3451
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Samuel BOYD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4725
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joshua C. YALE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3551
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Donovan Kevin WOLSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3523
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Cornell JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3508
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Leroy A. PARSONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3135
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Raymond PERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2873
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Khen TANG, Appellant, v. Hong P. LY, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2754
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    George C. PUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-523
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Eric HATCHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4482
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Willie M. LIGHTFOOT, Jr., Appellant, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2116
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Micah Darius SOLOMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4323
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sammie Lee SMITH IV, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4828
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Annette AVILES, Appellant, v. HIDDEN OAKS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION and Castlepoint National, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-4801
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Patrick THURMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-3772
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    R.C. THOMAS, Appellant, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2411
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Michael KNOTTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3614
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Marcial H. RIVERA, Appellant, v. EVERBANK; Olga Rivera; et al., Appellees.
    No. 1D18-3431
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Robbie Glenn MURPHY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-2738
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robin Lawrence JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-440
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Roger Hamilton VOSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-0115
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Derk L. ALLABEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4386
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Carlos S. KENON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4228
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Brian Keith KOEHLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3404
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jamale Eugene SMALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4279
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    James Michael HAWLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2658
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael ADAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4041
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher J. FORRESTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3259
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Alonzo MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D19-0126
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Timothy Daniel WELLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4673
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Horace S. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4540
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    James Derek COTTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3195
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Darren L. FORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2359
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kamarccus J. WEBSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1331
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Foster Adam CAPPS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D19-0134
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Gary SMALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D19-757
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Anthony Darnell BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4569
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rufus C. MOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-5123
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Juan JENKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4275
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Rayl Lynn KELLAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4246
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Fletcher SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-98
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Wilmario TRUEBLOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Nos. 1D17-4307 1D17-4308
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lonnie Robert MUNN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2909
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Steven F. HUGHES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1866
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Timothy Clarence MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4171
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Betty Caitlin Nicole SMITH, Petitioner, v. Zachary Taylor DANIEL, Respondent.
    No. 1D19-2098
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Terashey Marie MERRITT, Appellant, v. Christopher MERRITT, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4776
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kerry MCAULEY, Appellant, v. LINDSEY B. Rowe, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-208
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    E.M.B., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4816
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Aleta DEMARCO, Appellant, v. LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT/SEDGWICK CMS, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-3139
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert HUNT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2620
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    David J. PARKER, Appellant, v. Janet L. CHRISTIANSEN, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-170
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Anthony CREWS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1367
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joshua E. ROSE, Former Husband, Appellant, v. Chrisanna L. ROSE, Former Wife, Appellee.
    No. 1D19-164
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    David E. ZIPPERER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D19-0046
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Vida VONGSAY, Appellant, v. Mark Anthony DRURY, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4918
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Edward A. ROCHE, Appellant, v. ISLAMORADA BRICK COMPANY/CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-3602
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Benjamin F. GRAHAM, II, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2988
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Norman PLATT Jr., Appellant, v. FOUR FOUNTAINS, INC. and PMA Companies, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-2570
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    David E. ZIPPERER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D19-0050
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Brittany MCKINNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-2605
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Reginald T. JONES, Petitioner, v. FLA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.
    No. 1D19-0278
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 27, 2019 Rehearing Denied Date May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Douglas E. CATT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D18-231
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 1, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   DENIED.


text:
    Sasha N. PRINGLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-5379
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 12, 2019 Rehearing Denied Date May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Edgardo Xavier RIVERA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-3799
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 17, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kendrick M. JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-5194
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 11, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Zerrick Desmond HILLARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-2754
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 11, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christian BORGWALD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2171
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 29, 2019 Rehearing Denied Date May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jana KIGHT, f/k/a, Jana Kight Whitehead, Petitioner, v. Frank WHITEHEAD, Respondent.
    No. 1D19-0711
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Larry Leonard RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3558
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ralph Mark SEILER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3655
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Doris THEWS, Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, a foreign limited partnership, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-5162
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed March 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Curtis Jay HOLZSCHUH, Appellant, v. Eileen Wyatt HOLZSCHUH, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3681
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher J. RAHAIM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-5096
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Teresa LEE, Appellant, v. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as indenture trustee of the FBR Securitization Trust 2005-4, Mortgage Backed Notes, Series 2005-4, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-59
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Anthony HOLLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D19-49
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Hewitt A. GRANT II, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3312
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 1, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Daniel Jamar BROWN, DOC #R53553, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1554
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 24, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kari CHIN, Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-8
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Dale GIVENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3934
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Dominique SCOTT, DOC#H24958, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-945
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Carlos TRAMONTANA, Appellant, v. MTGLQ INVESTORS, L.P., Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2879
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 3, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Khonesavanh KAKHANKHAM, DOC #C09650, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1820
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Demario M. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-4004
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Bryant Allen CODY, DOC #H34443, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3276
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jon Robert MUSSER, DOC #S15997, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3412
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert L. DAVIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    Case No. 2D18-4325
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 3, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Mia Rokiki PARKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3558
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Bruce D. BERLINGER, Appellant, v. Roberta Sue CASSELBERRY, f/k/a Sue C. Berlinger, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-4273
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 10, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    BLACK POINT ASSETS, INC., a Florida Corporation, as Trustee Under the 5108 Panorama Avenue Land Trust Dated December 1, 2013, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, not in its Individual Capacity but Solely as Trustee for the RMAC Trust, Series 2016-CTT; Olivia J. Bogart a/k/a Olivia Blaskvitch; Unknown Party #1 nka Jacquana Lucas; and the Unknown Beneficiaries of the 5108 Panorama Avenue Land Trust Dated December 1, 2013, Appellees.
    Case No. 2D18-1050
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 3, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christina PAYLAN, M.D., Appellant, v. JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION; and Gregory Holder, Circuit Court Judge, Appellees.
    Case No. 2D18-302
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 3, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Roy W. THOMAS, DOC #C07487, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3477
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.