text:
    Christina PAYLAN, M.D., Petitioner, v. Timothy FITZGERALD and Farmer & Fitzgerald, P.A., Respondents.
    Case No. 2D17-5161
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed September 5, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    Hugh Howell HESTER, Jr. and Jennifer F. Plouffe, as natural Guardians of and on behalf of C.H., a minor, Appellants, v. ALL CHILDREN'S HEALTH SYSTEM INC., a Florida Corporation; All Children's Hospital, Inc., a Florida Corporation; Palm Harbor Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, P.A., a Florida Professional Association; and Karena Aileen Neri, M.D., Appellees.
    Case No. 2D17-2294
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed August 24, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    In the INTEREST OF B.D., a child.
    A.R., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families, Guardian ad Litem Program and M.D., Appellees.
    Case No. 2D17-4700
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed October 3, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mario E. SILVERIO and Jose R. Travieso, Appellants, v. DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-2084
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed September 28, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kenneth Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1224
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed September 26, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Alvin V. HAYNES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1610
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed September 26, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Terrel Allen LEWIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4760
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed October 19, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jamal L. BLAKELY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4811
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed October 19, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Dennis P. MCGURK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-481
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed October 12, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rodney LOCKETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4648
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed October 10, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Suzannah Leigh AVILA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-447
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed October 26, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Carl REDDING, DOC #905530, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4895
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed October 19, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tommy J. EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-326
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed October 19, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael S. FOY, DOC# R62628, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-344
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed October 19, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Aaron C. PORTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4545
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 7, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jahrez Devarean WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4757
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 7, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Obelin JAIMES-AVILES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1036
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 7, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Anthony MARESCA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1143
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 7, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Marquis Jarvis RIDDLE, DOC# R50737, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4538
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Eduardo GUITARD, Jr., DOC #935174, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-5049
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rodjay B. JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4682
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 7, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Cortez A. DAVIS, a/k/a Cortez Antonio Davis, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1251
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 7, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Herbert MCELROY, DOC #R21739, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-5093
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 9, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Roy Alan WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-146
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 9, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Isaac HILLERY, DOC #522443, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-259
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Clayton W. HOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-582
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James L. LILLY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1508
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jordan E. ZWICKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-2993
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Daniel MOSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-675
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Earl James DOWNS, DOC#H26167, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-97
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Antwan POPE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1466
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Owen D. DENSON, Jr., aka Hikim Shabazz, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1479
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gary TILLMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1529
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Justin GRAYER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4215
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mario JUAREZ and Whitney Juarez, Individually; Whitney Juarez, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Marley Juarez, a Minor; and Whitney Juarez, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Landon Juarez, a Minor, Appellants, v. Teri L. ST. HILAIRE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Norman G. Graf, Deceased; Grow Financial Federal Credit Union; and RS & H, Inc., a Florida Corporation, as Successor in Interest to Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellees.
    Case No. 2D17-5022
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Otis BLAXTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1257
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lonnie O'QUINN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1484
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    William BERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1489
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Richard COVERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-2849
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Adam MENKES, Appellant, v. DYCK-O'NEAL, INC., Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-2865
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ricky NEALY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4203
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Angela MEHAS, Appellant, v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4341
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jose Luis DELEON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1235
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Craig Shawn CUMMINGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1526
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Eddie E. PACHECO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1682
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Pablo ROMERO-CONCEPCION, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-3224
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Eugenio ROMERO-CONCEPCION, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-3273
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Oscar SUAREZ-AYALA, DOC #940052, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4177
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Onique WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1546
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Andres RODRIGUEZ TORRES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1655
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Victoria SZURANT, Appellant, v. Josef AARONSON; Pangaea Industries, Inc. ; The Perfect Find of Sarasota, LLC; Magnum Solution, Inc.; and Everest Services, LLC, Appellees.
    Case No. 2D18-1145
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 21, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Victoria SZURANT, Appellant, v. Josef AARONSON, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-282
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 21, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jacob MURRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1715
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael E. CUMMINGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-446
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mark MOORE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-0912
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    H. R., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-1520
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Antawone E. JAMES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3757
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    C & L AEROSPACE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. MID-SOUTH SERVICES, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4051
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 31, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    STATE of Florida, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Keith CONNORS, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3474
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Wandel CAMPANA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3629
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 05, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Nathaniel G. HANNAH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3455
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 25, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Proceeding is dismissed.


text:
    Madison DUNLAP, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3343
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 17, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    STATE of Florida, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Jeffrey RIZCO, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3788
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Nathaniel JACKSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3259
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Melvin BENJAMIN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2439
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 15, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Shahid C. FLORENCE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4459
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 13, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Laurie TIMMONS, Laura's Secret, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Shauna S. GRIER and Robert L. Grier, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4047
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 15, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.

Denied.


text:
    Melvin G. DAVIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2366
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 08, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Aaron Roosevelt COLEMAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2285
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 2, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Certiorari is dismissed.


text:
    Glennis Dewain COMBS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3998
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 25, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Belafonte Lopez ROSIER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3206
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 09, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    Adib A. MUHAMMED, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3843
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 5, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Writ of habeas corpus is denied.


text:
    Willie Lee MCGEE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3303
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 24, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Ducarmel BELLEVUE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2045
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 09, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    Angelina TAYLOR, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-1955
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 06, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Willie Lee DANIELS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-1829
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 06, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Steven T. HUMPHREY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2284
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 25, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Emmett HOLLIDAY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-1797
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is denied.


text:
    Denis LAURENT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-0968
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 31, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Gilbert GONZALES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-1788
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    September 26, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Jamie GEER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2482
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Octavious HELMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3887
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 06, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred.


text:
    Orin E. BIVENS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4180
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 16, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Nathan HANNAH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Kristeen A. DOBSON, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4032
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 08, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Tracey M. BURTON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Andrew L. NICHOLS, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3867
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 08, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    FCCI COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. PATNODE ROOFING, INC., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NOS.: 2D17-3510 2D17-4638
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 10, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted. Dismissed.


text:
    Karen KLYMAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4790
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 06, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred.


text:
    Randolph KAHL - WINTER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3850
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Wesley BLANC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-4897
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 27, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted. Denied.


text:
    JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. SUNTRUST BANK, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2011
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    SPE-FVC2014-NCW II, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION and Mark C. Goward, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3902
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Krishna BLAIR, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2826
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 09, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    Garrett M. KERN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2865
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    September 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    H. B., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3217
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 06, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Joseph CRAWFORD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3557
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Edward L. ATKINS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3174
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 17, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Lamar COFFEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2531
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    September 21, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Rodney Lane MCGEE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4086
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 22, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    M.R., the Mother, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D18-1330, 3D18-1108
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismiss.


text:
    Carlus Dewayne MCKAUFMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1628
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed August 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Nelson VIERA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1466
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed August 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.A.B., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-0117
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 25, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Stephen D. LEONARD, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D18-0672
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Stephen D. LEONARD, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D18-0671
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Stephen D. LEONARD, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D18-0656
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 29, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Anthony LATERZA, Appellant, v. Mark RUBENSTEIN, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1140
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lawrence WIGG, Appellant, v. Amy Beth BITTING o/b/o Emily Wigg, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1261
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 1, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Roberta SIRGUTZ, Appellant, v. Brian SIRGUTZ, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Stanley Sirgutz, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1265
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    K. Gary BRACHLOW, Appellant, v. Janice CHIM a/k/a Janys Chim, Roy E. Baker, Gary Paskal, and Ronald B. Chim, Appellees.
    No. 4D18-480
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    WESTCOR LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Theodore BABBITT, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-619
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Egal BEN-SHIMOL, Appellant, v. Julie E. BEN-SHIMOL, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-794
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Herbert BENEDICT, Appellant, v. Leta BENEDICT, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1243
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Benjamin PATIPA and Marla Patipa, Appellants, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3137
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Shawn J. LAUTERBACH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3165
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 1, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tony E. DORAN and Charlotte Doran, Appellants, v. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3181
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    PALM BEACH POLO, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. The VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON, a Florida municipality, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3584
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sheldon THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3625
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    C.Q.W., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3717
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 1, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Samson Peter RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3781
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Zuriel Ken 'Delle ASH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3808
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 1, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Loudle JACKSON, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Indenture Trustee of the Aames Mortgage Investment Trust 2005-1, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-39
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 1, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael MASLAK, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR WAMU MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, Series 2005-PR4 Trust, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3136
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 8, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Troy MIEDEMA, Appellant, v. Jody Black MIEDEMA, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3191
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 8, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Brian A. SYMONETTE a/k/a Brian A. Symonette, Sr., Appellant, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, d/b/a Christiana Trust, Not Individually but as Trustee for Pretium Mortgage Acquisition Trust, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1105
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 8, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Penni Jane MARKFIELD a/k/a Penni Jane Schultz, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3199
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 8, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Diana JELIC, Appellant, v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a the Bank of New York, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-155
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 8, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Martha RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-797
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 8, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mary A. PITTMAN, Appellant, v. Alvin Eugene PITTMAN, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1196
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 8, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Luba SOLONENKO, Appellant, v. GEORGIA NOTES 18, LLC, and Felice Cellini, et al., Appellees.
    No. 4D18-1405
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 8, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ronald W. BRAUN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2475
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Frantz Lajune JOHNSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2150
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Miratel CAPITAINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2038
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 16, 2018 Rehearing Denied November 21, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jason M. LEAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2042
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Alan PATE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1937
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    C.S.G., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1536
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Tyler Jerome GORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida and Department of Corrections, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D18-1409
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Christopher RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1362
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    HOP HIEU LE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1093
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kevin FRASER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-151
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jerry L. GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2344
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Alexander G. TORTORIELLO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2186
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Shavonni HEMENEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2053
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Carl HEINMAN, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1970
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Michael A. HODGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida and S.B. Rossiter, Warden, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D18-1811
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Harry Lee GOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1173
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Dawn Elizabeth JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1157
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Clarence CUNNINGHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-928
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Mario ST. FORIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-789
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Alan PATE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-501
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Steven EDENFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-399
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Robert LAWSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-212
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Richard HOLDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-146
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Charles L. SEMKO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2392
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Barry Howard MACWILLIAMS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2323
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Johnny VILLAFANE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2318
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    John Henry RAPP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-4084
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 30, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    J.B., Father of J.B., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2207
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Timothy S. MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2175
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Amber Marie HUBBARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2063
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Fredrick B. SANDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1943
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Aleem ALI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1667
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Nicholas SALERNO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1651
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Votypka Vladimir FELDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1603
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    M.E.J., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1564
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Anthony M. BAILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1539
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Michael Christopher DEMARCO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1476
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Anthony DOYLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1361
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Larry Darnell PERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1275
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Lawrence Matthew BOKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-926
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Adam BARRETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-861
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Michael A. ZAPATA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-582
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Otis TIMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-850
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 4, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    CABLE BAHAMAS, LTD., Appellant, v. BEOTHUK INVESTMENT, LTD., Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-422
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Tremaine Treveon SULLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-259
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Dante TUCKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-77
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Zeyad ABUSIRYEH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3963
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Edwin Allen WREN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3919
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    William W. FIFER, Appellant, v. Eva M. FIFER, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3606
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Richard BARNES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3397
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kionn ALLS, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE O/B/O Sharita Denise GOSA and Randy Gosa, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3379
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    John Lee JAROSZ, Appellant, v. Edna Christine JAROSZ, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2059
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Christine REIMEL and Richard Reimel, Appellants, v. FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2842
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Janos FARKAS, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR The CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF LMT 2006-9, and Travelertrust, LLC as Trustee for the Dunes Trust Dated 2/23/07 Legacy Dunes Condominium Association, Inc., Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-3353
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


author: Ciklin, J.

text:
    James GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3276
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 3, 2018]
    Lee Friedland of Friedland & Associates, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   Ciklin, J.

This appeal arises from the trial court's denial of the defendant's request for a downward departure sentence based on his mental health condition. We find the trial court erred in determining that it lacked the discretion to impose a downward departure sentence, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings before a different judge.

The defendant was before the trial court for sentencing on two violation of probation matters as well as new offenses involving harassing telephone calls to the judge then presiding over his case. Prior to sentencing, the defendant was found incompetent to proceed based on mental illness. Four months later, after receiving treatment at a competency restoration center, he was found competent and transferred to the county jail.

In a written motion, the defendant sought a downward departure sentence pursuant to section 921.0026(2)(c) and section 921.0026(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2017).

After an evidentiary hearing during which a psychologist testified on the defendant's behalf, the trial court found the defendant "has a mental [dis]order [that is] unconnected with substance abuse," but it denied the motion, finding that the "doctor said he is not amenable" and that "[n]obody said [that the defendant] will cooperate and take his meds. [There is] [z]ero evidence on that." The court reiterated that there was "no evidence" of the defendant's amenability to treatment. The court did not make any findings as to the other ground for departure raised by the defendant.

In reviewing a trial court's denial of a request for a downward departure sentence, this court applies a "mixed, two-part review," which first addresses whether competent substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding as to "whether there is a valid legal ground and adequate factual support for that ground" (step one), and next addresses whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that it should not depart (step two). Kovalsky v. State , 220 So.3d 1192, 1194-95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Here, the trial court erred in two respects, both relating to step one of the process.

First, the court found that there was no evidence of the defendant's amenability to treatment. But the record clearly belies this notion. For a trial court to find that a defendant is amenable to treatment, "[t]here must be evidence that there is a reasonable possibility that such treatment will be successful." State v. Hillhouse , 708 So.2d 326, 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) ; see also State v. Skidmore , 755 So.2d 647, 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ("In order to impose a departure sentence [based on necessity of and amenability to treatment for a mental disorder], there must be competent substantial evidence to establish that the defendant exhibits the potential to be rehabilitated.").

Here, the psychologist, Dr. Michael Brannon, testified that the defendant was amenable to specialized treatment involving placement in a dual diagnosis residential treatment facility with follow up care, as he had insight into the effects of his disorder, family support, and a reasonable chance of being able to complete a program. We recognize that there was evidence that the defendant stopped taking his medication upon his return to the jail. However, Dr. Brannon explained that this was not a surprise, as those suffering from schizo-affective disorder sometimes stop taking their medication while they are in jail or prison because they feel threatened by the environment. Dr. Brannon also suggested that unlike a residential dual-diagnosis program offering the specialized treatment the defendant required, the jail might lack medication compliance groups that focus on "encourag[ing] the person to continue to take their medication." Dr. Brannon observed that when the defendant had been treated in a place with more structure, such as the competency restoration center, he had done "very well."

In short, although there was conflicting evidence as to the defendant's amenability to treatment, there was not a total lack of evidence on this point, as the trial court erroneously stated, and there was in fact sufficient evidence to depart.

The trial court also erred in failing to consider the other ground for departure put forth by the defendant. There was evidence which could support a departure sentence based on section 921.0026(2)(c). Dr. Brannon opined that the statements the defendant made in harassing communications directed to the first judge presiding over his case were consistent with his diagnosis and "very consistent with delusional beliefs." He elaborated:

Just in terms of a judgment to do that, and him leaving messages and things like that, how poor the judgment is with that is consistent with mental illness.
But the content, meaning the suspiciousness and expectations that he was being treated unfairly within the system by that judge, and then referenced to personal notes as well, is more suggestive of mental illness.
This is the person deciding your fate, deciding at least in terms of your freedom, so to incite that situation with such personal commentary, although not unheard of, in his particular case would be more consistent with his paranoid delusions.

The trial court did not make any findings regarding whether there was competent substantial evidence supporting departure under section 921.0026(2)(c).

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the trial court erred in making a specific finding that it lacked discretion to depart downward with respect to section 921.0026(2)(d) and further by failing to consider whether the evidence supported departure under section 921.0026(2)(c).

We reverse the defendant's sentences and remand for further proceedings before a different judge.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings before a different judge.

May, J., and Harper, Bradley, Associate Judge, concur.

      Pursuant to section 921.0026(2)(c), the trial court may impose a downward departure sentence where the "capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminal nature of the conduct or to conform that conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired." Pursuant to section 921.0026(2)(d), the trial court may impose a downward departure sentence where the "defendant requires specialized treatment for a mental disorder that is unrelated to substance abuse or addiction ... and the defendant is amenable to treatment."

      The state argues that we could affirm based on the defendant's failure to prove his mental health disorder required specialized treatment. We find no merit in this argument. Dr. Brannon testified that schizo-affective disorder requires specialized treatment involving medication and structured environments to help the person continue to comply.


author: Taylor, J.

text:
    Bernardo GRAY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    Schadrac Jean Francois, Petitioner, v. State of Florida, Respondent.
    Fredery Leon Duarte, Petitioner, v. State of Florida, Respondent.
    Herbert Barr, Petitioner, v. State of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 4D18-2373 No. 4D18-2374 No. 4D18-2375 No. 4D18-2376
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 10, 2018]
    Howard Finkelstein, Public Defender, and Lisa S. Lawlor, Assistant Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for respondents.
   Taylor, J.

The petitioners are defendants in the criminal division of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, challenging their pretrial detention without bond. Each defendant in this consolidated proceeding is charged with a felony punishable by life. At the defendants' first appearance, the presiding judge found probable cause as to their charges and refused to set bond without first determining whether the probable cause affidavit or other materials established that proof of guilt was evident or the presumption was great. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.131(b) (requiring the court at first appearance to determine pretrial release conditions for eligible defendants unless the State has moved for pretrial detention). Petitioners argue that the refusal to set bond or make the required findings violates article I, section 14 of the Florida Constitution, State v. Arthur , 390 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1980), and fails to follow our holding in Ysaza v. State , 222 So.3d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

In Ysaza , we held that at a first appearance hearing the presiding judge is required to make a finding as to whether the probable cause affidavit or other materials presented to the court establish that proof of guilt is evident or the presumption great as a basis for denying pretrial release without bond. We explained that if the first appearance court finds that this standard has been met and declines to set bond, the defendant can later move to set bond and request a full Arthur hearing, where the defendant has a right to present evidence and to ask the court to exercise its discretion to set bond. Id. at 6 (citing Brackett v. State , 773 So.2d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ). However, to hold the defendant without bond pending an Arthur hearing, the first appearance judge is "required to find that the probable cause affidavit (or other materials before the court) establishe[s] that proof of guilt is evident or the presumption great." Ysaza , 222 So.3d at 7.

Here, in all four of these consolidated cases, defense counsel raised Ysaza , but the same first appearance judge, after finding probable cause, refused to set bond without determining whether proof of guilt was evident or the presumption great. Moreover, the State had not filed or stated its intention to file a motion for pretrial detention, and the judge did not follow the procedures for holding a defendant pending a pretrial detention hearing. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.132(a).

In the State's response to our order to show cause, the State acknowledged that the first appearance judge erred in failing to make a finding that proof of guilt was evident or the presumption great. However, the State urges us to find that the error was harmless, as we did in Ysaza , because on de novo review we could ourselves examine the probable cause affidavits and determine that they establish as to each defendant that proof of guilt is evident and the presumption great. Quoting Ysaza , the State argues that "no useful purpose would be served in remanding for another hearing before the first appearance judge," because "the defendant can request the judge to whom the case is assigned to conduct a full Arthur hearing where the defendant can challenge the state's proof and seek to 'demonstrate that release on bail is appropriate.' Arthu r, 390 So.2d at 720." Ysaza , 222 So.3d at 7.

Having reviewed the probable cause affidavits in each of these cases, we agree with the State that the affidavits establish that the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption great. Therefore, consistent with Ysaza , we deem the error harmless and deny the petitions without prejudice for petitioners to request an Arthur hearing before the assigned judge. Ysaza , 222 So.3d at 4. However, we reiterate and stress that the first appearance judge must make this determination in the first instance and not defer this responsibility to the assigned judge or to our court for de novo review. Bond cannot be denied at first appearance, without the first appearance court making the necessary findings pursuant to article I, section 14 of the Florida Constitution and State v. Arthur , 390 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1980).

Petitions denied without prejudice for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Conner and Kuntz, JJ., concur.


author: May, J.

text:
    Lisa HOGAN, Appellant, v. Matthew ALOIA, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3529
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 10, 2018]
    Heather M. Kolinsky and Chad A. Barr of the Law Office of Chad A. Barr, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for appellant.
    Kerry Loomis of the Law Office of Loomis & Loomis, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.
   May, J.

Three issues are raised in this appeal from a child support modification order. First, whether the trial court correctly denied the former wife's last minute motion for continuance; second, whether the trial court erred in calculating the modified amount of child support; and third, whether the trial court erred in not ruling on the former wife's motion for attorney's fees. The former wife appeals the order.

We affirm the trial court's denial of the motion for continuance, but reverse the modification order and remand the case for further proceedings. The attorney's fees issue is not ripe for our consideration as there was no evidence introduced in support of the motion. The trial court may consider this issue upon remand.

The final judgment of dissolution incorporated a marital settlement agreement ("MSA"). Under the terms of the MSA, the former husband agreed to pay child support for three children, to be reduced as each became emancipated. It also ordered the former husband to pay alimony.

The trial court reduced the former husband's alimony and child support obligations in the summer of 2015 based on a substantial decrease in the former husband's income. Later that year, the former wife petitioned for modification of child support. In March, 2016, the former husband filed an answer and counter-petition, titled as a request for modification of child support and other relief, but requesting a decrease or termination of his alimony obligation only.

Two weeks before the scheduled trial on February 24, 2017, the former wife moved to continue the trial "for production of third party discovery, depositions, and hearing on temporary relief." According to the former wife, the court did not consider the motion until she filed a second motion on the day of trial. According to the former husband, the trial court denied the motion. The record does not contain an order denying the first motion.

On the day of trial, the former wife's counsel filed a second motion to continue, alleging that the former wife was too ill to attend and the former husband's deposition was canceled due to counsel's illness. She referenced her prior motion to continue, and attached a nurse practitioner's note excusing the former wife from work until February 25.

The former husband claimed that the former wife was not sick and provided pictures and a video of her taken by a private investigator. The former wife's counsel also moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences. The court then issued an order to show cause against the former wife for failing to appear.

The former wife appeared for the hearing on the order to show cause on February 27, at which time, the trial court found the former wife was not in contempt. The court also granted counsel's motion to withdraw. The court reset the trial for March 2, 2017, and indicated that the "[f]inal hearing will proceed whether or not the [f]ormer [w]ife obtains new counsel. There will be no further continuances of this hearing."

At the trial, an attorney, representing the former wife on another matter, requested a continuance. He advised the court that he had been in touch with another attorney to represent the former wife, but that attorney needed more time to prepare. Counsel told the court that the new attorney was willing to speak with the court and provided his cell phone number. The trial court expressed its appreciation, but stated that the trial was going forward that day.

The former wife then proceeded pro se. She told the court that she felt her due process rights were being violated because she was unable to retain counsel who could prepare in such a short time. The trial court reflected on the history of the case and confirmed that trial had been initially set for December 9, 2016, but had been continued due to an unrelated courtroom problem, and this was the third trial date set.

Counsel for the former husband reminded the court of its admonition that there would be no further continuances. He reminded the court that the former wife's attorney withdrew because the former wife had not been truthful. Under these circumstances, he argued the case should not be continued.

The court denied the motion for continuance. The former wife indicated that her former attorney had her file and that she had "very few things." She explained that her attorney had been planning to withdraw for months because she had not been paid. She complained that she had requested attorney's fees, but never received them.

Counsel for the former husband advised the court that the former wife's attorney "said that she copied her client on absolutely everything," but the former wife denied that representation. The trial court announced that the trial would proceed with the former wife representing herself. Counsel for the former husband provided the former wife with a copy of her petition. The only witnesses were the parties themselves.

The Continuance Issue

The former wife argues the trial court erred in denying her motion for continuance after her attorney was allowed to withdraw. She claims her motion resulted from unforeseeable circumstances, was not dilatory, and caused no prejudice to the former husband. The former husband responds that the former wife did not actually request a continuance on the day of trial and instead complained that her previous request for a continuance was not granted. To the extent the former wife sought a continuance, the former husband's counsel argued the trial court properly denied the motion given the former wife's history of dilatory tactics and her untruthfulness about her prior failure to appear.

We review orders denying continuances for an abuse of discretion. A.P.D. Holdings, Inc. v. Reidel , 865 So.2d 682, 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Three factors should be considered when ruling on a motion for continuance. Fleming v. Fleming , 710 So.2d 601, 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). First, whether denying the motion creates an injustice for the movant. Id. Second, whether the reason for the request is unforeseeable and not the result of dilatory practices. Id. And third, "whether the opposing party would suffer any prejudice or inconvenience as a result of a continuance." Id.

Where a movant can retain counsel, or has ably represented him or herself in a case not involving complicated financial matters, a denial of a request for continuance does not result in an injustice. See Lee v. Lee , 751 So.2d 741, 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Was there an injustice to the former wife? Here, the former wife admitted knowledge that her attorney was going to withdraw because she had not been paid in months. This hearing was limited to a modification of child support and the only two witnesses were the parties themselves.

Was the reason for the request unforeseeable and not the result of dilatory tactics? The former wife could easily foresee her attorney withdrawing. She failed to appear at the prior trial while represented, which the trial court could easily consider dilatory.

Was the former husband prejudiced or inconvenienced? The record does not reflect any specific prejudice, but it does reflect that the former wife's actions had resulted in a missed trial date, a hearing on an order to show cause, and a reset trial date. Surely, the former wife's actions inconvenienced the former husband and his counsel. And, the trial court clearly advised the former wife there would be no further continuances when he reset the trial and declined to hold her in contempt for missing the first trial date.

While another trial judge may have granted a continuance, we cannot say that no reasonable judge under these circumstances "could differ as to the propriety of the action." Canakaris v. Canakaris , 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980). For this reason we affirm on this issue.

Modification of Child Support Issue

The former wife raises a myriad of issues in the trial court's recalculation of child support. In a nutshell, the sub-issues boil down to the court's calculation of the parties' incomes, and the court's failure to: (1) begin the child support determination with the child support guidelines for two children; (2) consider the unique living situation of one of the children ; (3) provide written reasons for deviating from the guidelines; and (4) attach a guidelines worksheet to the judgment. The husband responds that the wife's claims really turn on the court's credibility determinations, and suggests there was no error in the calculation of child support. He further responds that a guidelines worksheet was filed with the court.

We review a trial court's decision to modify child support for an abuse of discretion. Escobar v. Escobar , 76 So.3d 958, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). "The trial court's imputation of income must be supported by competent, substantial evidence." Sallaberry v. Sallaberry , 27 So.3d 234, 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

"In determining child support, a trial court must either follow the statutory guidelines or give reasons explaining any deviation. In either event, the guidelines are the starting point for the determination." Morrow v. Frommer , 913 So.2d 1195, 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (internal citations omitted). Section 61.30, Florida Statutes (2017), provides in pertinent part:

(1)(a) The child support guideline amount as determined by this section presumptively establishes the amount the trier of fact shall order as child support in an initial proceeding for such support or in a proceeding for modification of an existing order for such support .... The trier of fact may order payment of child support which varies, plus or minus 5 percent, from the guideline amount, after considering all relevant factors, including the needs of the child or children, age, station in life, standard of living, and the financial status and ability of each parent. The trier of fact may order payment of child support in an amount which varies more than 5 percent from such guideline amount only upon a written finding explaining why ordering payment of such guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate.

§ 61.30(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2017). Section 61.30(11)(a) provides grounds upon which the court may deviate.

The Fifth District's opinion in Crouch v. Crouch , 898 So.2d 177, 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) is helpful in reviewing this issue. There, the Fifth District held "the [trial]

court failed to make adequate findings as to earning ability of each parent and failed to determine a guideline amount before ultimately exercising its discretion to deviate from the guideline support." Id. at 181. Crouch emphasized that a trial court must begin with the child support guidelines and consider the applicable statutory factors before it can exercise its discretion to deviate.

Here, the trial court made the same mistake in calculating child support. First, the trial court erred in its calculation of the parties' income because the testimony did not support the rental income assessed to the former wife. It appears the trial court split the baby between the parties' testimony regarding the time share rental to arrive at the former wife's income. See Vanzant v. Vanzant , 82 So.3d 991, 992-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (finding trial court erred in "split[ting] the difference" in valuations put forth by the parties).

Second, the trial court did not begin its calculation with the presumptive guidelines amount for the two minor children. Rather it set a child support amount only for M.A., and then found it was "fair and equitable" for the parents to share the tuition costs for K.A. Third, the trial court failed to make the requisite findings supporting its deviation from the child support guidelines.

And fourth, the court failed to attach a child support guidelines worksheet to the judgment. The amended final judgment in the record does not have a child support guidelines worksheet attached to it, although it references such an attachment. The failure to attach the worksheet is error. See R.M. v. R.C. , 227 So.3d 160, 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).

We therefore reverse and remand the case to the trial court to recalculate the child support. See, e.g. , Augoshe v. Lehman , 962 So.2d 398, 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The trial court may take additional evidence if necessary to make findings regarding the former wife's rental income. See Rentel v. Rentel , 124 So.3d 993, 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Attorney's Fees Issue

The former wife argues the trial court failed to rule on her request for attorney's fees, temporary and otherwise, under section 61.16, Florida Statutes. She asserts that the parties' testimony supported an award, as she had a need and the former husband had an ability to pay. The former husband responds that the former wife failed to introduce evidence related to attorney's fees at the final hearing.

In her modification petition, the former wife sought attorney's fees. She moved three times for temporary attorney's fees and costs over a three-month time period. Two weeks before the February 24 trial date, she moved for continuance, and alleged that her request for fees was never heard due to court availability. She further alleged the court struck her motion for temporary fees without prejudice in February 2017 because she was unavailable for a deposition. The former wife filed another motion for temporary fees ten days before the February 24 trial date.

There are no orders on these motions in the record. During trial, the former wife did not present any evidence of attorney's fees or request them. In short, the trial court was in no position to award the former wife attorney's fees where no evidence was presented on the matter. This does not preclude the court from awarding fees upon remand.

Affirmed in part; Reversed and remanded in part.

Gerber, C.J., concurs.

Ciklin, J., dissents with opinion.

I respectfully dissent and do so by first observing the exasperation that every trial judge is sure to face during one's judicial career as it relates to strategic case management. As a trial judge, I came to understand that the best laid trial organizational plans can quickly go awry-particularly in a contentious matrimonial setting where one of the parties is unrepresented.

A well-prepared trial judge abhors trial management uncertainty, and thus unexpected trial delays brought on by a careless and unsophisticated pro se litigant tests the composure of the wisest and most patient of jurists.

Simply put, on the record before us, the trial court erred in denying the former wife's motion for a continuance which resulted in a denial to the former wife of her right to adequately present her case and be heard.

In denying the motion for continuances the trial judge made the following findings:

This is the third time that we've been set for trial. For the majority of that time the former wife did have counsel.... On the eve of trial, counsel for the former wife withdrew. We reset trial. I instructed the former wife that she must have counsel or be prepared to go to trial on her own. It is now 11:20. We're set for trial. The former wife is here without counsel. I had previously told her that we were going to go to trial with or without counsel because this matter had been reset so many times.

As the majority correctly explains, our analysis revolves around three factors: "whether the denial of the continuance creates an injustice for the movant; whether the cause of the request for continuance was unforeseeable by the movant and not the result of dilatory practices; and whether the opposing party would suffer any prejudice or inconvenience as a result of a continuance." Fleming , 710 So.2d at 603.

Here, the former wife's motion for continuance was based on her lack of representation at the final adjudicatory hearing coupled with her inability to retain an attorney on, as the trial judge characterized it, "the eve of trial." The former wife's attorney's motion to withdraw was filed six days before trial and granted three days before trial. The former wife's attorney, while before the court on another matter, expressly informed the court that another attorney would substitute in to represent the former wife if the matter could be continued. Indeed, the former wife informed the court that-predictably-no one would take her case without a continuance.

Ready or not, the trial court forced the former wife to proceed for the first time in the post-divorce litigation without a lawyer. The former wife was woefully unprepared to adequately present her case or present legally sound argument. The transcript of the final hearing reflects that the former wife did not understand courtroom procedure and the rules of evidence. In fact, she did not present any evidence in support of her request for attorney's fees apparently because she did not know she had to do so or how to do it. Under these circumstances, denial of the motion for continuance created an injustice. See Riley v. Riley , 14 So.3d 1284, 1286-88 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (finding denial of motion for continuance worked an injustice where husband's attorney withdrew days before trial, husband sought a continuance and representation on same day he was advised his attorney had withdrawn, and husband's failure to set motion for hearing prior to trial date showed he was not competent to represent himself).

The majority suggests that there was no injustice to the former wife because she "admitted knowledge that her attorney was going to withdraw because she had not been paid in months." The majority refers to a statement the former wife made in passing on the morning of the March trial date. But respectfully, the former wife's statement was devoid of context and in no case was it clear when counsel told the former wife that she planned to withdraw, whether counsel actually threatened to withdraw, or whether the former wife simply worried that counsel would withdraw (if temporary fees for her were not granted).

The majority also opines that no apparent injustice occurred because the trial was limited to the issue of modification of child support and the parties were the only witnesses. As evidenced by the trial transcript and the pleadings, this case involved child support arrearages, the calculated amount of ongoing child support payments under the statutory guidelines, and imputation of income including purported receipts by the former wife as to her interest in a Disney Vacation Club timeshare which encompassed a dispute as to net proceeds when considering administrative costs of the timeshare. With due respect to the majority, while "the only two witnesses were the parties themselves," that factor is beside the point. The involuntarily self-represented former wife was no match for the former husband's attorney.

As to the second factor for our consideration, whether the reason for the continuance was foreseeable and the request a dilatory tactic, the majority contends that the trial court "could easily consider" the former wife's failure to appear at the earlier February trial date which the former wife's attorney informed the court was because of the former wife's illness. Ironically, there is no indication in the record that the court found any of the former wife's actions to be dilatory.

Instead, the trial court relied on the fact that trial had been reset "so many times," seemingly ignoring that the first continuance was not chargeable to either of the parties. Additionally, as reasoning for its denial of the former wife's motion for continuance, the trial court reminded the former wife that the court had earlier decreed that the trial would proceed in three days whether she was represented or not. This was a legally insufficient basis upon which to strip the former wife of her choice to be represented by an attorney.

Finally, with respect to the third issue for our consideration, prejudice to the non-moving party, there was no record evidence of any nature whatsoever showing that the former husband would have been prejudiced by a continuance. In fact, the majority concedes that the "record does not reflect any specific prejudice ..."

Yes, as countenanced by the majority, it was more convenient (and most of the time within the court's complete discretion) to deny any further continuances and finally bring this matter to a conclusion. But given the undisputed facts of this situation, our civil justice system that guarantees fairness and due process, required that the trial court simply move on to another case in the queue, during which time the former wife could familiarize her newly-hired attorney with the ongoing post-divorce litigation. To do otherwise, in my opinion, was an abuse of the trial court's discretion, especially given the apparent ease by which it could have been done.

I would reverse and remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to grant the former wife's request to be represented by the attorney with whom she consulted and who she was prepared to hire but for the trial court's exasperation.

      In January 2017, a juvenile court judge entered an order directing the clerk of the court "to adjust the depository records to reflect child support for only one child (M.A.) ... effective as of August 30, 2016." This appears to have been based on a second child (K.A.) being placed at Boystown in Nebraska as a result of an unrelated juvenile court matter.

      Before we analyze the court's calculation of child support, we note the former wife does not challenge the trial court's implicit finding of a substantial change in circumstances and does not raise any due process concerns (other than self-representation). And, although the parties' son was a minor when the former wife filed her modification petition, she does not challenge the trial court's failure to award increased retroactive support for him from the time the petition was filed up to the time he turned eighteen years old.

      The transcript reflects that exhibits titled "Proposed Child Support Guidelines" were identified as exhibits, but not entered into evidence. The former husband claims the worksheet was entered into evidence and filed with the clerk, but fails to provide a record citation.


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    Stephen KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2670
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 17, 2018]
    Stephen King, Cross City, pro se.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

Stephen King appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. We reverse in part for the trial court to allow him to amend a successive rule 3.850 motion and to consider the merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

On direct appeal, this court affirmed King's convictions for two counts of lewd or lascivious battery on a child over twelve and one count of lewd or lascivious molestation. A little over a month after the mandate issued, King filed a rule 3.850 motion that was prepared by the public defender's office and related to a crime lab error in calculating DNA probability statistics. The trial court ordered a State response. Less than a month after King filed the first rule 3.850 motion, he filed a motion explaining that he was not aware the form motion prepared by his counsel could waive his right to file another rule 3.850 motion and that he intended to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. He asked the court to separate the form motion from his pro se rule 3.850 motion and requested additional time to file an amended motion. Approximately a month later, on June 23, 2017, King filed a memorandum of law in support of a rule 3.850 motion. Within the memorandum he included a second rule 3.850 motion, raising thirteen claims. King also filed a motion requesting relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 and numerous motions to define and/or clarify, raising various complaints about his criminal case.

The trial court treated the form motion prepared by defense counsel and two motions to define and/or clarify that were related to DNA evidence as a single rule 3.850 motion and summarily denied relief, agreeing with the State that the claims were refuted by the record. Before receiving the denial order, King filed a reply to the State's response. He again stated that he did not intend the form motion prepared by counsel to be his official rule 3.850 motion. He asked the court to dismiss the form rule 3.850 motion. King also claims that he tried to voluntarily dismiss the first motion before the State filed its response, but the court never received his voluntary dismissal.

King could reasonably have been confused by the form motion that he received from the public defender's office. He filed the motion shortly after the mandate issued on direct appeal and may not have appreciated that this motion could bar him from raising other postconviction claims. Although the court already had ordered a response from the State, King did not unreasonably delay his request to file an additional rule 3.850 motion. The trial court denied the form rule 3.850 motion without considering his request to amend the motion and without ruling on the merits of the second rule 3.850 motion in his June 23, 2017 memorandum of law. Under these circumstances, the second rule 3.850 motion should not be treated as impermissibly successive. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(h)(2).

On appeal, the State suggests that if this case is remanded for consideration of King's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, his second rule 3.850 motion should be stricken with leave to file a single, legally sufficient motion that complies with the requirements in rule 3.850(c) and (d). We agree.

King is cautioned that motions to define and/or clarify are not authorized and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 does not apply in criminal cases. The trial court may strike these pleadings.

Accordingly, the trial court's summary denial of the original rule 3.850 motion is reversed in part for the trial court to allow King to file a succinct, legally sufficient rule 3.850 motion raising his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

Warner, Conner and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.


author: Damoorgian, J.

text:
    David HIMMEL, Appellant, v. AVATAR PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
    Nos. 4D17-2724 4D18-0004
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 17, 2018]
    Cory S. Laufer of Laufer & Laufer, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.
    Mihaela Cabulea and Anthony J. Russo of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, Tampa, for appellee.
   Damoorgian, J.

In this consolidated appeal, David Himmel appeals from two summary judgments entered in favor of Avatar Property & Casualty Insurance Company ("Avatar") in his declaratory relief action. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse.

Undisputed Material Facts

Appellant owns a home which is insured by Appellee, Avatar. Appellant's policy provides that in the event of a loss giving rise to a claim, Appellant is responsible for, among other things, providing "prompt notice" to Avatar; submitting a sworn proof of loss within sixty days of request; and submitting to an examination under oath ("EUO").

On June 13, 2016, Appellant's residence sustained interior water damage after a newly installed air conditioning unit leaked. The next day, Appellant had the air conditioning installer repair the unit and also had a water remediation company remove any impacted flooring. The day after that, Appellant's public adjuster notified Avatar of the loss.

Avatar agreed to investigate the claim and scheduled an inspection of the property. Avatar also asked Appellant to submit a sworn proof of loss within sixty days, and in doing so, provided a proof of loss form and property loss worksheet. Appellant's public adjuster timely submitted a sworn proof of loss to Avatar which provided a detailed estimate of the necessary repairs to Appellant's home. However, the public adjuster did not use the proof of loss form or property loss worksheet provided by Avatar and did not provide information regarding Appellant's personal property.

Thereafter, Avatar's counsel sent Appellant a letter advising him that the sworn proof of loss submitted by the public adjuster was "deficient in several, different respects, and thus, cannot be accepted." Aside from stating that the submitted document was "not the form supplied, but rather, some other form, from some other company, furnishing information other than that requested and required," the letter did not specify what information was missing. The letter also requested that Appellant, his wife, the public adjuster, and the corporate representatives and employees of the companies hired by Appellant to perform work on the property submit to an EUO on a scheduled date.

Appellant subsequently retained counsel who contacted Avatar's counsel about rescheduling the EUO due to counsel's and Appellant's unavailability. Avatar's counsel denied the request to reschedule the EUO based on Appellant's purported failure to submit a valid sworn proof of loss. In response, Appellant's counsel e-mailed Avatar's counsel the previously submitted sworn proof of loss as well as a personal property inventory form and again requested to reschedule the EUO. Avatar refused, reiterating that the submitted sworn proof of loss was deficient. In response, Appellant's counsel asked that Avatar's counsel explain why the proof of loss was deficient and made another request to reschedule the EUO. Avatar's counsel again refused to reschedule the EUO or explain why the proof of loss was deficient.

It is undisputed that neither Appellant, his wife, the public adjuster, nor the corporate representatives and employees of the companies hired to perform work on the property appeared for the scheduled EUO. Instead, Appellant filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination of whether Avatar could reasonably require Appellant, his wife, the public adjuster, and the various third parties to submit to an EUO at a time that was not mutually convenient. Avatar, in turn, filed several motions for summary judgment, two of which are the basis for this appeal. In the first motion, Avatar sought entry of partial summary judgment on the grounds that Appellant failed to satisfy the post-loss contractual obligation of submitting to an EUO. In the second motion, Avatar sought entry of summary judgment on the grounds that Appellant failed to satisfy the post-loss contractual obligations of submitting a sworn proof of loss and providing "prompt notice" of the loss.

Appellant responded to Avatar's motions for summary judgment and argued that his cooperation with the post-loss conditions and explanation for not submitting to an EUO precluded entry of summary judgment. Attached to the response were several exhibits, including the various e-mail exchanges between Appellant's counsel and Avatar's counsel showing the repeated requests to reschedule the EUO; an affidavit from Appellant's counsel attesting to his efforts to reschedule the EUO and the reasons provided for rescheduling; an affidavit from Appellant attesting to his efforts to mitigate the damage; and the sworn proof of loss submitted to Avatar by the public adjuster.

Following a hearing, the court granted the two aforementioned motions for summary judgment. In its orders, the court found that the undisputed evidence demonstrated that Appellant failed to submit for an EUO; failed to submit a sworn proof of loss; and failed to provide Avatar with prompt notice of the loss. The court also found that the undisputed facts demonstrated Avatar was prejudiced by Appellant's failure to comply with the post-loss obligations. The court did not make a determination as to whether Avatar could reasonably require Appellant to submit to an EUO at a date and time that was not mutually convenient. In light of the dispositive nature of the rulings, the court thereafter entered final judgment in Avatar's favor. This consolidated appeal follows.

Analysis

1) EUO

We begin our analysis by addressing the trial court's finding that Appellant breached the policy by failing to submit to an EUO. "An insured's refusal to comply with a demand for an [EUO] is a willful and material breach of an insurance contract which precludes the insured from recovery under the policy." Goldman v. State Farm Fire Gen. Ins. Co. , 660 So.2d 300, 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). "If, however, the insured cooperates to some degree or provides an explanation for its noncompliance, a fact question is presented for resolution by a jury." Haiman v. Fed. Ins. Co. , 798 So.2d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Diamonds & Denims, Inc. v. First of Ga. Ins. Co. , 203 Ga.App. 681, 417 S.E.2d 440, 442 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992) ).

Here, although it is undisputed that Appellant failed to appear for the scheduled EUO, the record evidence reflects that Appellant's counsel repeatedly requested to reschedule the EUO to a mutually convenient date and time due to unavailability. Appellant attached to his response in opposition to Avatar's motions for summary judgment evidence showing the efforts made to reschedule the EUO. Accordingly, Appellant presented evidence showing that he cooperated to some degree and/or provided an explanation for his noncompliance which in turn created a question of fact as to whether there was a willful and material breach of the EUO provision, thus precluding entry of summary judgment. See Lewis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. , 121 So.3d 1136, 1136-37 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (whether insured's refusal to attend EUO unless it was via telephone or at her attorney's office constituted a willful and material breach was a fact issue precluding summary judgment based on insured's failure to cooperate); Haiman , 798 So.2d at 812.

2) Prompt Notice

We next address the trial court's finding that Appellant breached the policy by failing to provide Avatar with prompt notice. "Notice is necessary when there has been an occurrence that should lead a reasonable and prudent [person] to believe that a claim for damages would arise." Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Waldrep , 400 So.2d 782, 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Notice is said to be prompt when it is provided "with reasonable dispatch and within a reasonable time in view of all of the facts and circumstances of the particular case." Laquer v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. , 167 So.3d 470, 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (quoting Yacht Club on the Intracoastal Condo. Ass'n v. Lexington Ins. Co. , 599 Fed. Appx. 875, 879 (11th Cir. 2015) ). Accordingly, "the issue of whether an insured provided 'prompt' notice generally presents an issue of fact." Id. ; see also Gonzalez v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. , 441 So.2d 681, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) ("What constitutes a reasonable time within which to give notice of an accident under the terms of a policy of insurance is ordinarily an issue of fact."). But see Kroener v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n , 63 So.3d 914, 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (notice of loss provided over two years after the date of loss did not constitute "prompt" notice as a matter of law).

In the present case, the policy requires Appellant to provide "prompt notice" of the loss. Accordingly, Appellant was required to provide notice within a reasonable time given all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the loss. Laquer , 167 So.3d at 474. To that end, the summary judgment evidence reflects that Appellant provided Avatar with notice of the claim two days after the leak was first discovered and one day after the actual damage was discovered. The evidence also reflects that during those two days, Appellant was actively attempting to mitigate the damage by fixing the leak and removing the impacted flooring. Whether waiting two days before providing Avatar with notice was untimely in view of all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the loss was an issue of fact for the jury to determine.

3) Sworn Proof of Loss

Lastly, we address the trial court's finding that Appellant breached the policy by failing to submit a sworn proof of loss. It is well established that an insured's failure to submit a sworn proof of loss before filing suit is usually fatal to the insured's claim. Kramer v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. , 95 So.3d 303, 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). When an insured does submit a sworn proof of loss, however, the issue of whether the submitted document "substantially complie[s] with policy obligations is a question of fact" which precludes the entry of summary judgment. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Figueroa , 218 So.3d 886, 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ; see also Schnagel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 843 So.2d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Here, it is undisputed that Appellant submitted a timely sworn proof of loss via his public adjuster. Although on a different form, the submitted sworn proof of loss contained substantially the same information as requested in the form provided by Avatar with the exception of any claimed personal property loss. Nonetheless, whether Appellant's failure to include information about his personal property loss in the sworn proof of loss constituted a material breach of the policy was an issue of fact for the jury, not the trial court, to determine. See Schnagel , 843 So.2d at 1038 (holding that where the insured provided some, but not all, of the insurer requested documents pursuant to the policy's cooperation clause, the issue of whether the insured materially breached the policy was one for the jury to resolve).

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the two summary judgments and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Ciklin and Conner, JJ., concur.

      We reject Avatar's argument that affirmance is required pursuant to the tipsy coachman doctrine. In addition to the two motions for summary judgment at issue in this case, Avatar also filed three other separate motions for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court entered three separate orders denying those motions. Avatar has not filed a cross-appeal seeking review of those orders. Instead, Avatar now seeks affirmance of the two orders before this Court based on the alternate legal arguments contained in the three motions/orders which are not properly before this Court. If Avatar wanted to challenge the trial court's rulings on those motions, it should have filed a cross-appeal. Allen v. TIC Participations Tr. , 722 So.2d 260, 261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that when a final order is entirely favorable to appellee, a cross-appeal is the appropriate method for seeking review of an earlier non-final order).