author: JOINER, Judge.

text:
    STATE of Alabama v. Jarod ABRAMS
    CR-16-1347
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    April 27, 2018
    Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and James R. Houts, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
    Fernando Antonio Morgan, Montgomery, for appellee.
   JOINER, Judge.

The State of Alabama appeals a pretrial order of the Montgomery Circuit Court suppressing evidence that, the State says, demonstrates Jarod Abrams's guilt of the crimes of first-degree possession of marijuana, see § 13A-12-213, Ala. Code 1975, obscuring a vehicle-identification number, see § 13A-8-22, Ala. Code 1975, and second-degree receiving of stolen property, see § 13A-8-18, Ala. Code 1975.

Statement of Facts and Procedural History

In March 2015, Officer Brandon Truss of the Montgomery Police Department was on patrol when he noticed a white Ford Crown Victoria automobile traveling in front of his patrol car. Although the vehicle was not violating any traffic laws, Officer Truss decided to "run the tag" by entering the license-plate characters into a computer database. According to Officer Truss, he routinely ran tags on vehicles as an investigatory tool because, he said, doing so can help uncover expired tags, switched tags, and stolen vehicles.

After running the tag on the white Ford Crown Victoria, Officer Truss learned that the tag on the vehicle was actually registered to a stolen vehicle. As a result, Officer Truss pulled the vehicle over. The driver, later identified as Jarod Abrams, was the only occupant in the vehicle. As Officer Truss approached the driver's side of the vehicle, he noticed the strong odor of marijuana emanating from the rear. Officer J.E. Albrecht, who assisted Officer Truss with the traffic stop, later confirmed that the odor was marijuana.

When asked, Abrams provided a non-driver's identification card and registration information to Officer Truss. According to Officer Truss, the registration information matched the license plate displayed on the white Ford Crown Victoria but both the registration information and the license plate belonged to a different vehicle. When Officer Truss and Officer Albrecht checked the plate on the dashboard where the vehicle identification number ("VIN") was displayed, they noticed that another VIN plate appeared to have been glued on top of the original. They determined that that glued-on VIN plate belonged to another vehicle. Additionally, Officer Albrecht testified that an examination of the secondary VIN plate located on the inside door frame of the vehicle revealed that that plate had been scratched off and covered up. Based on this information, Officer Truss and Officer Albrecht arrested Abrams. Because of the marijuana odor emanating from Abrams's vehicle, they then searched the vehicle where they found marijuana in the trunk packaged into separate bags.

In January 2017, the Montgomery County grand jury indicted Abrams for first-degree possession of marijuana, see § 13A-12-213, Ala. Code 1975, obscuring a vehicle-identification number, see § 13A-8-22, Ala. Code 1975, and second-degree receiving of stolen property, see § 13A-8-18, Ala. Code 1975. On Friday, September 22, 2017, Abrams filed a motion to suppress any substances "and all other evidence of an incriminating nature found by law enforcement personnel in the defendant's vehicle or in the alleged actual or constructive possession of [Abrams]." (C. 52-57.) On September 25, 2017, before the State could file a response to Abrams's motion, the circuit court held a suppression hearing.

At the conclusion of that hearing, the circuit court took Abrams's motion under advisement. The court granted the motion the next day. In its two-sentence written order granting Abrams's motion, the circuit court also sua sponte dismissed the case against Abrams, even though such relief had not been requested in Abrams's motion to suppress. Thereafter, the State timely filed its notice of appeal.

Discussion

The State argues that the circuit court erred when it granted Abrams's motion to suppress evidence seized by Officers Truss and Albrecht when they pulled Abrams over and searched his vehicle. (State's brief, pp. 10-20.) Specifically, the State argues first that Abrams did not have a privacy interest in the license plate on the vehicle he was driving and that, therefore, Officer Truss's decision to "run" his plate number did not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (State's brief, pp. 10-13.) The State further argues that, when Officer Truss's check of Abrams's license plate revealed that the plate belonged to a vehicle that had previously been reported stolen, Officer Truss then had sufficient reasonable suspicion to stop Abrams. (State's brief, pp. 13-20.) Finally, the State argues that any evidence obtained by the State after stopping Abrams's vehicle-specifically, the VIN plate and the marijuana-falls within the "plain view" and "plain smell" exceptions to the warrant requirement and, thus, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Id. We agree with the State.

Initially, we note that the only evidence presented at the suppression hearing was the testimony of Officer Truss and Officer Albrecht. That evidence was undisputed. Regarding the proper standard of review to be applied in this case, this Court has held:

"In reviewing decisions of a trial court concerning a suppression of evidence, we apply a de novo standard of review when the evidence is not in dispute. State v. Hill, 690 So.2d 1201, 1203 (Ala. 1996). Because the evidence is undisputed, and the only quarrel is with the application of the law to the facts, we will review the evidence de novo, 'indulging no presumption in favor of the trial court's application of the law to those facts.' Stiles v. Brown, 380 So.2d 792, 794 (Ala. 1980) (citations omitted)."

State v. Banks, 734 So.2d 371, 372 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). With these principles in mind, we address the State's claim on appeal.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The United States Supreme Court has held that the protections of the Fourth Amendment extend to the states through the operation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 (1961). "[T]he State's intrusion into a particular area ... cannot result in a Fourth Amendment violation unless the area is one in which there is a 'constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.' " New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 112, 106 S.Ct. 960, 89 L.Ed. 2d 81 (1986) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed. 2d 576 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring) ). Importantly, "objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure ...." Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed. 2d 1067 (1968).

In his motion to suppress, Abrams argued that Officer Truss's decision to run his license plate without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. (C. 54.) The State argued, however, that the license plate was in "plain view" and, thus, that Officer Truss's decision to run the license-plate number without any prior suspicion of criminal activity was appropriate. (State's brief, pp. 10-13.)

Neither this Court nor the Alabama Supreme Court has addressed whether the Fourth Amendment requires a police officer to have reasonable suspicion before checking a vehicle's license-plate number in a database. In looking to other jurisdictions, however, we have found that several courts have held that a person has no privacy interest in a license-plate number and, thus, that a superficial investigation of a person's license-plate number in plain view is not restricted by the Fourth Amendment.

For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has held on two occasions that license plates are "in plain view on the outside of the car" and thus, are "subject to seizure" because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Matthews, 615 F.2d 1279, 1285 (10th Cir. 1980) ; see also United States v. Walraven, 892 F.2d 972, 974 (10th Cir. 1989). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has also held that "[a] motorist has no privacy interest in her license plate number." Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 529 (5th Cir. 1999) ; accord United States v. Sparks, 37 F.App'x 826, 829 (8th Cir. 2002) (not reported in the Federal Reporter); Hallstein v. City of Hermosa Beach, 87 F.App'x 17, 19 (9th Cir. 2003) (not reported in the Federal Reporter). Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that "there is no case law indicating that there can be any reasonable expectation of privacy in license plates which are required by law to be displayed in public on the front and rear of any vehicle on a public street." United States v. Batten, 73 F.App'x 831, 832 (6th Cir. 2003) (not reported in the Federal Reporter); see also Wayne R. LaFave, 1 Search & Seizure § 2.5(b) (4th ed. 2004) ("[I]t is apparent that when a vehicle is parked on the street or in a lot or at some other location where it is readily subject to observation by members of the public, it is no search for the police to look at the exterior of the vehicle.").

Moreover, entry of this information into a law-enforcement computer database does not infringe on a person's privacy interest. Indeed, "running" a search for a license-plate number through a computer database has been deemed far less invasive than other government actions that fall outside the protections of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Ellison, 462 F.3d 557, 562 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 177, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed. 2d 214 (1984) (holding that entering private property with "No Trespassing" signs to observe marijuana plants in an "open field" not visible from outside the property did not implicate the Fourth Amendment) ); Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, 239, 106 S.Ct. 1819, 90 L.Ed. 2d 226 (1986) (holding that photographing an industrial complex with a precision aerial-mapping camera not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment); California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 213-14, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed. 2d 210 (1986) (holding that using aerial surveillance in public airspace to observe the curtilage of a private residence not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 745-46, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed. 2d 220 (1979) (holding that placing a pen register on a telephone line to record the numbers dialed from a private residence not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment).

Here, during the suppression hearing, Officer Truss testified that, in March 2015, he was on patrol with Officer Albrecht when he decided to "run" the license-plate number of a white Crown Victoria automobile traveling in front of him. (Supp. R. 7, 12.) Officer Truss stated that, although the driver of the vehicle-later identified as Abrams-had not violated any traffic laws, he routinely ran license-plate numbers through his patrol unit's computer while on patrol because, he said, it was a way to uncover expired tags, switched tags, and stolen vehicles. (Supp. R. 22-23.) According to Officer Truss, the only thing he did was type Abrams's license-plate number into his computer. (Supp. R. 7, 12.) He did not stop or pull Abrams over at that time. Id.

Alabama law requires that a license plate be displayed at all times on the rear of the vehicle so that it is plainly visible. § 32-6-51, Ala. Code 1975. Under the Fourth Amendment caselaw discussed above, it is apparent that Abrams did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his plainly visible license plate. Thus, Officer Truss was justified in running Abrams's license-plate number through his computer system, and no Fourth Amendment violation occurred.

At the suppression hearing, Officer Truss further testified that, after running Abrams's license-plate number in his computer, he learned that the license plate was registered to a different vehicle. (Supp. R. 7-8, 26.) This provided Officer Truss with sufficient reasonable suspicion to pull Abrams over.

After Abrams brought the vehicle to a stop, Officer Truss got out of his patrol car and walked toward the vehicle. As he approached the driver's side of the vehicle, Officer Truss stated that he noticed the strong odor of marijuana emanating from the rear area of the vehicle. (Supp. R. 8, 11.) Officer Albrecht confirmed that, after he arrived on the scene, he also smelled the odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. (Supp. R. 26, 29.)

Officer Truss made contact with Abrams and asked him for a license and registration information for the vehicle. (Supp. R. 8.) At that time, Abrams provided him with a non-driver's identification card and registration information. (R. 8, 10.) According to Officer Truss, the registration information matched the tag displayed on the white Ford Crown Victoria, but both the tag and the registration information belonged to a different vehicle. (Supp. R. 15.) When Officer Truss and Officer Albrecht moved to the front of the vehicle to check the VIN, they noticed that the VIN plate on the dashboard appeared to have been glued on top of the original. (Supp. R. 10, 27.) Officer Albrecht testified that the glued-on VIN plate belonged to a different vehicle. (Supp. R. 27.) He further testified that an examination of the secondary VIN plate located inside the doorframe of the vehicle revealed that the VIN plate in that location had been scratched off and covered up. (Supp. R. 27.) Based on this information, Officer Truss and Officer Albrecht arrested Abrams. (Supp. R. 10.) They then searched the interior of Abrams's car, where they found marijuana packaged in separate bags in the trunk. (Supp. R. 10, 27.)

In his motion to suppress, Abrams argued that the officers' warrantless search of his vehicle-specifically, the VIN plates and the trunk-violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures because, he said, he did not consent to the search, and the search did not fall within any of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. (C. 54.) The circuit court appeared to agree with Abrams's argument and granted his motion. The circuit court's decision, however, was erroneous.

First, with regard to the police officers' warrantless search and seizure of the VIN plate in the vehicle, this Court has previously stated

"It is well settled that warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless the State establishes that the search or seizure falls within a recognized exception. Ex parte Hilley, 484 So.2d 485, 488 (Ala. 1985). Exceptions to the warrant requirement include: 1) objects in plain view; 2) consensual searches; 3) a search incident to a lawful arrest; 4) hot pursuit or emergency situations; 5) probable cause coupled with exigent circumstances; and 6) an investigatory detention and frisk pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed. 2d 889 (1968). Ex parte Tucker, 667 So.2d 1339, 1343 (Ala. 1995)."

State v. Cowling, 34 So.3d 717, 719-20 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has held that, because federal law requires a VIN to be in plain view, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the VIN for Fourth Amendment purposes. See New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 114, 106 S.Ct. 960, 89 L.Ed.2d 81 (1986). Thus, because Abrams did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the VIN plate on the vehicle, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred when Officer Truss and Officer Albrecht inspected both VIN plates in his vehicle.

Next, with regard to the officers' search and seizure of the marijuana from the trunk of Abrams's vehicle, this Court has previously stated:

"Another recognized exception to the warrant requirement is the 'automobile exception,' which allows law enforcement to search an automobile based on probable cause alone. State v. Black, 987 So.2d 1177, 1180 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) (citing Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466-67, 119 S.Ct. 2013, 144 L.Ed. 2d 442 (1999) )."

Cowling, 34 So.3d at 719-20. Under the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement, " '[a] warrantless search of a vehicle is justified where there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband.' " Harris v. State, 948 So.2d 583, 587 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) (quoting Lykes v. State, 709 So.2d 1335, 1337 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) ). " 'Probable cause to search a vehicle exists when all the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to conclude that an offense has been or is being committed and the vehicle contains contraband.' " Harris, 948 So.2d at 587 (quoting State v. Odom, 872 So.2d 887, 891 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) ).

"The level of evidence needed for a finding of probable cause is low." State v. Johnson, 682 So.2d 385, 387 (Ala. 1996). "In dealing with probable cause ... we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act ...." Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949). "[O]nly the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity is the standard of probable cause." Stone v. State, 501 So.2d 562, 565 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986) (quoting Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed. 2d 637 (1969) ). Importantly, it is well settled that "the odor of burned marijuana emanating from an automobile is enough to provide probable cause to search the vehicle." Blake v. State, 772 So.2d 1200, 1202 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). See also State v. Gargus, 855 So.2d 587, 592 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (holding that an officer's detection of "the odor of 'burnt marijuana smoke' emanating from [a] vehicle ... established probable cause" to search the vehicle); Key v. State, 566 So.2d 251, 254 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990) (same). Cf. Adams v. State, 815 So.2d 578, 582, n.4 (Ala. 2001) (holding that "where police officers smell the odor of burned or burning marijuana coming from a legally stopped automobile, police officers have probable cause to arrest all of the automobile's occupants ..."); State v. Breeding, 200 So.3d 1193 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015).

As noted above, at the suppression hearing, both Officer Truss and Officer Albrecht testified that they smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from the rear of Abrams's vehicle when they approached it after pulling him over. According to Officer Truss, this odor caused him and Officer Albrecht to search the inside of the vehicle, where they discovered marijuana packaged into separate bags in the trunk of the car. Based on the undisputed testimony of Officer Truss and Officer Albrecht, the officers had " 'probable cause to believe the vehicle contain[ed] contraband.' " State v. Cowling, 34 So.3d 717, 722 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). Therefore, their search of Abrams's vehicle was justified under the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement. Accordingly, the circuit court erred in granting Abrams's motion to suppress evidence seized during the search of his car. Likewise, the circuit court's sua sponte dismissal of the charges, which was based on its granting of Abrams's motion to suppress, was erroneous and is due to be reversed.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and this cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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

      There is a discrepancy in the record as to the type of vehicle to which the license plate was registered. In their police reports, both Officer Truss and Officer J.E. Albrecht state that the license plate was registered to a stolen blue Ford Crown Victoria. (C. 58, 59.) The case report details included in the record indicate, however, that the plate belonged to a stolen Buick Lacrosse. (C. 63, 64.)

      According to the record, that VIN belonged to a tan 1998 Mercury Grand Marquis automobile. (C. 22.)

      Citations to the record from the suppression hearing are denoted with "Supp. R. ____."

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


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE: R.A.
    CASE NO.: SC19-74
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    JANUARY 22, 2019
    Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation filed by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, it is ordered that the Board's recommendation is approved by the Court and R.A. shall be admitted to The Florida Bar subject to the following conditions:
    1. The applicant's license to practice law shall be placed on probation for a period of two years.
    2. During the period of probation, the applicant shall:
    (a) continue to consult with Elizabeth J. Killion, ARNP, or other licensed mental health provider, at least, monthly or more frequently as her mental health provider deems necessary;
    (b) follow promptly, diligently, and completely all instructions by her mental health provider including the taking of any medication in the recommended manner as may be prescribed by her mental health provider;
    (c) have her mental health provider submit quarterly reports to The Florida Bar during the entire probationary period. These reports shall confirm the applicant's consultations for the preceding quarter and shall advise The Florida Bar of the applicant's continuing ability to engage in the active practice of law;
    (d) obtain an agreement from her mental health provider stating that the mental health provider will immediately notify The Florida Bar if the applicant misses a scheduled appointment without prior rescheduling; and
    (e) submit quarterly sworn statements to The Florida Bar by March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31 during the probationary period attesting to his compliance with the conditions set forth in 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d) above.
    3. The Florida Bar shall monitor the conditions set forth in the Consent Agreement pursuant to Rule 1-3.2(b) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, and the costs thereof shall be paid by the applicant to The Florida Bar or its designated monitoring agency.
    4. To monitor effectively the provisions in this agreement, the applicant shall reside within the State of Florida during the entire period of probation. Any business or pleasure trips outside Florida that exceed ten days shall occur only with the advance approval of The Florida Bar. If the applicant relocates outside the State of Florida during the probationary period for any reason, the applicant shall surrender his license to practice law in Florida and if the applicant fails to do so, the Supreme Court of Florida shall terminate his license.
    5. If the applicant's license is surrendered or terminated during the probationary period, the applicant shall resume the practice of law in the State of Florida only upon full compliance with the rules and regulations governing admission to The Florida Bar.
    6. A failure to observe the conditions of the probation or a finding of probable cause as to conduct of the applicant committed during the period of probation may terminate the probation and subject the applicant to all available grievance procedures and disciplinary sanctions including disbarment under the Rules of Discipline. Upon receiving notice of a violation of the Court's order of conditional admission, The Florida Bar may immediately petition the Court for an order of suspension. The applicant shall have ten days to file a response. If no response is timely filed by the applicant, then the Court shall issue an order suspending the applicant. If a response is filed, the matter shall be disposed of as the Court directs. Unless terminated by the Court, an order of suspension shall remain in effect until final disposition of the grievance procedures commenced by The Florida Bar against the applicant.
    7. The applicant shall immediately inform The Florida Bar of any criminal arrest or prosecution or the filing of any grievance or complaint related to the applicant's practice of law.
    8. If circumstances so warrant it, the applicant and The Florida Bar may stipulate to an extension of the period of probation or The Florida Bar may petition the Court for such an extension with a final decision to be made by the Court.
    9. By executing this Agreement, the applicant specifically consents to and authorizes the release of any and all materials in the applicant's file to The Florida Bar that the Bar may request from the Board to enable the Bar to fulfill its responsibilities under this Consent Agreement.


text:
    FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE: H.M.O.
    CASE NO.: SC19-40
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    JANUARY 22, 2019
    Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation filed by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, it is ordered that the Board's recommendation is approved by the Court and H.M.O. shall be admitted to The Florida Bar subject to the following conditions:
    1. The applicant's license to practice law shall be placed on probation for a period of six months.
    2. During the period of probation, the applicant shall:
    (a) continue to consult with Dr. Daniel Mandri, or other licensed mental health provider, at least, monthly or more frequently as her mental health provider deems necessary;
    (b) follow promptly, diligently and completely all instructions by her mental health provider including the taking of any medication in the recommended manner as may be prescribed by her mental health provider;
    (c) have her mental health provider submit quarterly reports to The Florida Bar during the entire probationary period. These reports shall confirm the applicant's consultations for the preceding quarter and shall advise The Florida Bar of the applicant's continuing ability to engage in the active practice of law;
    (d) obtain an agreement from her mental health provider stating that the mental health provided will immediately notify The Florida Bar if the applicant misses a scheduled appointment without prior rescheduling; and
    (e) submit quarterly sworn statements to The Florida Bar by March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31 during the entire probationary period attesting to her compliance with the conditions set forth in 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d) above.
    3. The Florida Bar shall monitor the conditions set forth in the Consent Agreement pursuant to Rule 1-3.2(b) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, and the costs thereof shall be paid by the applicant to The Florida Bar or its designated monitoring agency.
    4. To monitor effectively the provisions in this agreement, the applicant shall reside within the State of Florida during the entire period of probation. Any business or pleasure trips outside Florida that exceed ten days shall occur only with the advance approval of The Florida Bar. If the applicant relocates outside the State of Florida during the probationary period for any reason, the applicant shall surrender his license to practice law in Florida and if the applicant fails to do so, the Supreme Court of Florida shall terminate her license.
    5. If the applicant's license is surrendered or terminated during the probationary period, the applicant shall resume the practice of law in the State of Florida only upon full compliance with the rules and regulations governing admission to The Florida Bar.
    6. A failure to observe the conditions of the probation or a finding of probable cause as to conduct of the applicant committed during the period of probation may terminate the probation and subject the applicant to all available grievance procedures and disciplinary sanctions including disbarment under the Rules of Discipline. Upon receiving notice of a violation of the Court's order of conditional admission, The Florida Bar may immediately petition the Court for an order of suspension. The applicant shall have ten days to file a response. If no response is timely filed by the applicant, then the Court shall issue an order suspending the applicant. If a response is filed, the matter shall be disposed of as the Court directs. Unless terminated by the Court, an order of suspension shall remain in effect until final disposition of the grievance procedures commenced by The Florida Bar against the applicant.
    7. The applicant shall immediately inform The Florida Bar of any criminal arrest or prosecution of the filing of any grievance or complaint related to the applicant's practice of law.
    8. If circumstances so warrant it, the applicant and The Florida Bar may stipulate to an extension of the period of probation or The Florida Bar may petition the Court for such an extension with a final decision to be made by the Court.
    9. By executing this Agreement, the applicant specifically consents to and authorizes the release of any and all materials in the applicant's file to The Florida Bar that the Bar may request from the Board to enable the Bar to fulfill its responsibilities under this Consent Agreement.
    A True Copy
    Test:
    John A. Tomasino
    Clerk, Supreme Court


text:
    Lauren M. COUBERT, Appellant, v. James BARNETT and Richard Barnett, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-86
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    December 19, 2018 Rehearing Denied January 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rashard A. EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2735
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    December 7, 2018 Rehearing Denied February 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Adam GWARA, Appellant, v. Nicole SARDINA, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2669
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    November 30, 2018 Rehearing Denied January 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Marktavios MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1544
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    November 15, 2018 Rehearing Denied January 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Lyndon Bruce JOHNSON Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-0640
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jason Edward REED, Former Husband, Appellant, v. Jade Elizabeth REED, Former Wife, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-3886
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    December 27, 2018 Rehearing Denied February 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael Lawrence CASSIDY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-3462
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    December 27, 2018 Rehearing Denied February 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Matthew FRYE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-0676
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    December 21, 2018 Rehearing Denied February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Greg D. MCFARLANE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-0227
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Adrian B. WYNN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4407
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Randall Steven SPEARS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4116
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kenneth DOCTOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4100
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kristen Elizabeth WAGNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2678
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Marquis Antonio CORBITT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2591
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Matthew Lee RILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-3545
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.J., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2110
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Matthew Lee RILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-3543
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    William SIMS, Appellant, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al., Appellees.
    No. 1D18-2007
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Cheyenne BENTLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1263
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Dartorian LEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-0893
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Chason JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1102
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Micah SOLOMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1541
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.B., Father of M.L.B., J.L.A.B., J.J.B., Minor Children, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4235
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Matthew Lee RILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-3546
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Leonard PERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3024
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Joseph THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1933
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Stephon BUSBEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1874
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jessie D. QUEEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1402
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James Lee PRITCHETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2279
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Chason JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1101
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Chason JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1100
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gregory GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-1755
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Charles E. BELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1194
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sylvester LYNN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-426
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Christopher George ROGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4722
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Joshua Lee ROGERS, DOC #H04986, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-5129
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed October 26, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Autumn Dawn BRETON, Appellant, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, D/B/A Christiana Trust, Not in Its Individual Capacity, But Solely as Trustee for BCAT 2015-14ATT, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4612
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed December 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Caleb SEMENTELLI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2323
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed December 12, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jeffrey R. VIVERETTE, DOC# 498735, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-621
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Johnathon L. LUESING, DOC# H25184, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-632
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed November 9, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher C. CIHAK, Appellant, v. Tammy M. CIHAK, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1767
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    William REESE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-4809
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Brian M. CASEY, DOC #139647, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-590
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed December 21, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Wanda IMBER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-92
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed December 21, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Arnoldo MELENDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-250
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Corey Javon FIELDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2670
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2679
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kevin WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2707
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Demetrice Paul SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2710
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Alfonso L. MILES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1748
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    William G. SNEED, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1785
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Darius Q. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2735
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Randy MARQUARDT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2861
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jonathon BRAY, Appellant, v. Najla BRAY k/n/a Najla Murray, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4176
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Serkan OZEK, Appellant, v. Maya OZEK, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-5090
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    David L. WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2866
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Melvin Isaiah SCURRY, DOC #Y63047, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-3176
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Benton B. BELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2894
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    John SCOTT, Petitioner, v. LEE COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Respondent.
    Case No. 2D18-3532
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Ramon M. ORTIZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2910
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Roland DIXON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1428
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    T.S.C., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1552
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 30, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Travis Lee MORGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-3342
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tony GILILEO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-2684
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tavaris Antonio JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-3535
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Steven R. KEENE, DOC #T29350, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1064
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael E. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1349
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Phillip T. SENTERS, DOC #165399, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1447
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael George YOUNG, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-4491
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jimmy Dale ANTLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-3860
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Toby BROWN, DOC #H17614, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-324
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael STEVENS, DOC #359409, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-814
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 30, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    D.C.F., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3913
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Francisco RESENDIZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4138
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Jonathan A. HOSELTON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3679
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Lacorey WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Grady C. JUDD, Jr., Sheriff, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-5043
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    ZENITH INSURANCE CO., et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Ryan Buck PIERCE, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3680
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Robert L. DAVIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4212
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred.


text:
    Augustus James LOWERY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-1665
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Connor HENDERSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Anna PETERSON a/k/a Anna Novak, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4942
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    William GLOVER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4548
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Laurie Elizabeth BRETON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2202
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Darius BOYD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4104
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Randy A. HART, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Ruth KNIGHT, A. P. D., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3981
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 15, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    William CARPENTIER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Chris NOCCO, Sheriff of Pasco County, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4971
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Steven BEEBE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-5049
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 25, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Carlos CHANAX, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4915
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Albert BROOKS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4972
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    SUMMERVILLE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FL, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4130
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Giles E. ORCUTT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-5039
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 25, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    D'Angelo Lavelle DIXON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Julie JONES, Secretary and Jeff Thomas, Warden, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4235
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 17, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Marquelle Dominque WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3029
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    October 10, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Paul Murrell CLAYTON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3829
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Richard EHRET, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3669
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Lamar Anthony HAMILTON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4563
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    Derek D. DURANT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4857, 2D18-3500
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 10, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed. Denied.


text:
    Terrance Ward PORTER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0331
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Paul Anthony WHITE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3141
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed. Denied.


text:
    Marvin Lee HOUSAND, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3845
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    David Allen DENNEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Chad CHRONISTER, Sheriff of Hillsborough County, Florida and State of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4498
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 19, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    S. M., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2726
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Buddy SMITH, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-0502
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Justin FORD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-4919
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Michael Rameil PATTERSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4788
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Agrait ALVARADO-CINTRON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2146
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Tracey Lynn WALLS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2992
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Anthony IACOVINO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3046
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Nathaniel WAUGH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4871
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    GT MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a Davinci's Portrait and Peek-A-Boo Lounge of Bradenton, Inc., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. MANATEE COUNTY, Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0272
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Carolyn M. SMITH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FANNIE MAE (FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION), et al. Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4893
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 04, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Michael R. PATTERSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3848
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Virgilio PLANTILLA, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. Luk VONGPRACHANH, Appellee/Cross Appellant.
    Case No. 2D18-976
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Faranak ESFAHANI, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-4635
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Kimberly YOUNG, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4680
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 06, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Joseph Leroy JONES-EL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Rhonda DUNCAN, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4762
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 01, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Darryl SCHNEIDER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. CHART INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4761
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    SPRUCE RIVER VENTURES, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. PARRISH, WHITE & YARNELL, P.A., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0047
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 06, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Gennie BAGLEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Krystal TAYLOR, R.N., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-5123
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Olena WILSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. James WILSON, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0026
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Travis VARNEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Crystal L. VARNEY, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4853
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 12, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    C.C., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3543
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 06, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Martye S. GATTIE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0344
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 04, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Writ of certiorari is denied.


text:
    Anthony GRIFFIN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Lesley GRIFFIN, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3957
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 01, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Writ of mandamus is dismissed.


text:
    E.T.R., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. C.R., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2003
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Christopher SCOTT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. MTGLQ INVESTORS, L. P., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4084
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Charles K. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2279
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jorge A. FERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. Maury LEYVA-FERNANDEZ, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-455
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed December 12, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Dr. Steve GALLON, III, Appellant, v. Pam STEWART, as the Commissioner of Education, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1937
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed October 17, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Keith WROMAS, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1496
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Selvin VASQUEZ-GOMEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2382
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Devon Waltrell LANNIGAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2219
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Steve AUSTIN, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1675
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gerald URBANEK, Appellant, v. ADSMP HOLDINGS, LLC, as Assignee of Atkinson, Diner, Stone, Mankuta & Ploucha, P.A. and Fowler, White Boggs, P.A., a Florida limited liability company, Kathleen A. Ragland and Jesse H. Diner, Appellees.
    No. 4D17-3869
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 31, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Daren Lee BELLINGER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1279
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mark ONDICH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-3323
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [December 27, 2018]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jason JOSEPH and Kristina Joseph, Appellants, v. U.S. ROF III LEGAL TRUST 2015-1, BY U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Legal Trustee, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-380
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 31, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Empris JONES, Appellant, v. State of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-933
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 31, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Carnell MASON and Sylvia Mason, Appellants, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1286
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 31, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Everline JACKSON, Appellant, v. William WILSON, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1327
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 31, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sonia COTERA, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR LEHMAN XS TRUST MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, Series 2006-16N, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1511
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 31, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Uvo OLOGBORIDE, Appellant, v. INVERRARY GARDENS CONDO I, a Florida Corporation, Not-For-Profit, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1905
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 31, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    SABAL CHASE HARMONY HOUSING LLC d/b/a Sabal Chase Apts., Appellant, v. TOKIO MARINE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-2107
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 31, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Raynald L. DOLISCA, Appellant, v. Fritz J. DOLISCA and Igenette Dolisca, Appellees.
    No. 4D18-1891
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 31, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.S., the Father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES and Guardian ad Litem Program, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-2679
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 31, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sidney F. DINERSTEIN, a Palm Beach Gardens Registered Voter and Qualified Elector, Appellant, v. Susan BUCHER, in Her Official Capacity as Supervisor of Elections for Palm Beach County, The City of Palm Beach Gardens, and Patricia Snider, in Her Capacity as City Clerk for Palm Beach Gardens, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-901
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 17, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Louis BACCARI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1318
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 10, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Markee D. FELTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-2520
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 17, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Randall EDWARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-3085
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 17, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Eugene REED, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2362
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed December 4, 2018 Rehearing Denied February 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Leroy FEATHERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2912
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 6, 2018 Rehearing Denied February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jose L. LUGO-SAINEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3819
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    K.W., Mother of L.D. and M.D., Children, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3318
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Bradley Lee MCCOY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3108
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Calvin CHANDLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3101
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Derick WATERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2180
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Arnick Earle FOOTMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2975
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Anthony Dewayne DAWSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2152
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Beverly WHITLOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1552
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kristina BILLIAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1469
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    A.R., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1423
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Dillon BROWN, Appellant, v. Destiny LEMON, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1031
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Nevin BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-908
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Benjamin F. GARY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-108
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Julio Angel GARAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3130
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Virginia RIVERA SANTIAGO, Appellant, v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3085
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Bruce Robert BENSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3075
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    William ADAMS, Appellant, v. Reinaldo Laboy IRIZARRY, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-721
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    James Bernard PLEAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-244
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Magbool M. KHAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2743
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Henry W. JACKSON, Jr. and Linda Jackson, Appellants, v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Volusia County, Florida, Shaundy Thomas and DRS of Central Florida, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D18-971
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 8, 2019 Rehearing Denied February 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Connie Ray ISRAEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-79
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jarrod SCORDATO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-4077
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Johan Eliot CHIRI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-550
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Rosa THOMPSON and Larry Thompson, Appellants, v. WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, LLC, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-4010
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kyle HOOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-4303
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Neal BELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3106
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Cassidy MCWATERS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3889
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Robert HUTCHINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3872
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Clint G. HORVATT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3855
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Gary R. RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3168
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Michael MCGHEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3147
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Randy INFANTE DIAZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-783
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Thomas Lamont FORT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-488
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Carla BAYNARD, Appellant, v. WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-132
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


author: Gerber, C.J.

text:
    Juan Carlos JULIA, Appellant, v. Martha JULIA, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2261
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 16, 2019]
    Eddie Stephens of Ward, Damon, Posner, Pheterson & Bleau, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Troy William Klein, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   Gerber, C.J.

The former husband raises several arguments in appeal of the trial court's final marriage dissolution judgment and post-judgment orders related to alimony and child support. We conclude the trial court erred in:

1. failing to make the statutorily-mandated finding that no form of alimony, other than permanent alimony, was fair or reasonable under the parties' circumstances;
2. basing the permanent alimony award amount on the former husband's gross income, rather than his net income;
3. allocating the parties' collateral child support obligation using an 80/20 split, rather than the 60/40 split applied to the regular child support obligation;
4. awarding retroactive child support without considering the former husband's mortgage payments during the dissolution's pendency; and
5. awarding the former wife a one-half interest in the portion of the former husband's pension which accrued before the parties' second marriage to each other.

We address each argument in turn.

1. Permanent Alimony Finding

The former husband correctly argues that the trial court failed to make the statutorily-mandated finding that no form of alimony, other than permanent alimony, was fair and reasonable under the parties' circumstances.

Section 61.08(8), Florida Statutes (2015), provides in pertinent part:

Permanent alimony may be awarded to provide for the needs and necessities of life as they were established during the marriage of the parties for a party who lacks the financial ability to meet his or her needs and necessities of life following a dissolution of marriage. ... In awarding permanent alimony, the court shall include a finding that no other form of alimony is fair and reasonable under the circumstances of the parties.

(emphasis added).

The former husband relies on Jordan v. Jordan , 199 So.3d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), which is on point. In Jordan , the trial court entered a permanent alimony award in the wife's favor. Id. at 344. However, the trial court failed "to make the requisite finding that no other form of alimony would be fair and reasonable." Id. at 345. We held: "That finding might be implicit in the trial court's conclusion; nevertheless, the statute requires the finding to be made. We therefore reverse and remand the case for this finding, which the trial court will no doubt make." Id.

As in Jordan , we reverse and remand for consideration of this statutorily-mandated finding.

2. Gross vs. Net Income

The former husband correctly argues that the trial court reversibly erred when it based the alimony award amount on the husband's gross income, rather than his net income. "Net income rather than gross income is relevant when calculating support awards, including alimony." Rentel v. Rentel , 124 So.3d 993, 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). We reverse and remand to permit the trial court to make the required findings regarding net income and modify the alimony award, if necessary. See id. (reversing alimony award and remanding for trial court to determine net income and, if necessary, modify the award).

3. Collateral Child Support Split

The former husband correctly argues that the trial court reversibly erred in ordering the parties to pay for the children's noncovered health, dental, and extracurricular expenses in an 80/20 split, where the regular child support allocation was split 60/40.

Section 61.30(8), Florida Statutes (2017), provides in pertinent part:

Health insurance costs resulting from coverage ordered pursuant to s. 61.13(1)(b), and any noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses of the child, shall be added to the basic obligation unless these expenses have been ordered to be separately paid on a percentage basis .

(emphasis added). "In other words, absent some logically established rationale in the final judgment to the contrary, collateral child support expenses must be allocated in the same percentage as the child support allocation." Zinovoy v. Zinovoy , 50 So.3d 763, 764-65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Here, the trial court's final dissolution judgment originally allocated collateral child support expenses 80% to the former husband and 20% to the former wife. Post-judgment, however, the trial court entered a child support order allocating regular child support expenses 59.84% to the former husband and 40.16% to the former wife, but without revisiting the previous collateral child support allocation. The trial court did not provide a "logically established rationale" for the disparity in the allocations.

Without any "logically established rationale" for the disparity in the allocations, that portion of the post-judgment order was error. See, e.g., Demmi v. Demmi , 186 So.3d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing collateral child support order and directing the trial court "to reapportion the parties' allocation for uncovered medical expenses based on their relative financial responsibility for the support of their minor children"); Wilcox v. Munoz , 35 So.3d 136, 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ("It is error for the court to equally divide the noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses when the court arrives at an unequal percentage share of child support.").

Thus, we reverse that portion of the trial court's post-judgment order. On remand, the trial court may provide a "logically established rationale" for the disparate collateral support percentages. Otherwise, the trial court must allocate the collateral child support expenses in the same percentage as the regular child support allocation. See Weaver v. Weaver , 95 So.3d 1029, 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ("On remand, the trial court shall amend the final judgment to allocate these expenses in accordance with the parties' respective shares of the child support obligation.").

4. Mortgage Payments Consideration

The former husband correctly argues that the trial court erred in awarding retroactive child support without considering the former husband's mortgage payments during the dissolution's pendency.

Section 61.30(17)(b), Florida Statutes (2017), provides, in pertinent part: "In determining the retroactive [child support] ... the court shall consider ... [a]ll actual payments made by a parent to the other parent or the child or third parties for the benefit of the child throughout the proposed retroactive period."

In Bond v. Bond , 224 So.3d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), the Second District held:

When one party pays the mortgage payment or housing expenses of another party, it is considered an in kind contribution for purposes of the child support guidelines. Jacob v. Jacob , 26 So.3d 11, 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ("Although the trial court found that the [h]usband was paying for the marital home mortgage, utilities, and upkeep, the child support guidelines worksheet demonstrates that the trial court failed to factor in those contributions in determining the award. Such is an abuse of discretion."); Schafstall v. Schafstall , 211 So.3d 1108, 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("[T]he trial court was required to include in its calculation of the former wife's gross monthly income the value of the mortgage payments paid by the former husband as in kind contributions.").

Id. at 875 (other internal citation omitted).

Here, at the hearing on the former wife's motion for retroactive support, the former husband argued that if the former wife prevailed, then the trial court should credit the former husband for his marital home mortgage payments during the dissolution's pendency. However, the child support guidelines worksheet, upon which the trial court relied, reflects that the former husband did not receive credit for those mortgage payments.

The trial court's lack of consideration of the former husband's mortgage payments during the dissolution's pendency was error. Thus, we reverse the retroactive child support award. On remand, in determining the retroactive child support, the trial court shall consider the former husband's mortgage payments during the dissolution's pendency.

5. The Former Husband's Pension

The former husband correctly argues that the trial court erred in awarding the former wife a one-half interest in the portion of the former husband's pension which accrued before the parties' second marriage to each other.

" 'Marital assets and liabilities' include ... [a]ll vested and nonvested benefits, rights, and funds accrued during the marriage in retirement, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, deferred compensation, and insurance plans and programs." § 61.075(6)(a)1.d., Fla. Stat. (2017).

"Premarital contributions to retirement pensions are not to be included in the distribution of marital assets." Scott v. Scott , 888 So.2d 81, 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). "[O]nly the marital portion of the pension may be equitably distributed." Downey v. Downey , 843 So.2d 932, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The burden is on the pensioner "to prove whether some portion of [the] pension benefits accrued prior to marriage and therefore should not be included as a marital asset." Childers v. Childers , 640 So.2d 108, 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

Here, it is undisputed that the former husband earned pension benefits before the parties' second marriage to each other. Thus, the trial court erred when it awarded the former wife a one-half interest in the former husband's pension without excluding the portion of the pension which accrued before the parties' second marriage to each other. See Blythe v. Blythe , 592 So.2d 353, 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ("It was error for the court not to have allocated to the husband that portion of the pension fund that accrued to him before the couple's marriage."). We reverse and remand for the court to determine that portion, and adjust the distribution of the former husband's pension benefits accordingly. Id.

On all other arguments which the former husband raises in this appeal, we affirm without further discussion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Forst and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.