text:
    William C. SIMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2977
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    Robert J. BAILEY, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
    No. 1D18-2974
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   DENIED.


text:
    Travis JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2793
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jerrol KNIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2751
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Allen Lenard MCGRIFF, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2422
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Robert YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-5367
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Joseph W. ATKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2516
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lorenzo Carol ALSTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-5160
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tyrome Terrell ROBERTS Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-3953
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    S.M., Father of S.M. and A.M., Minor Children, Appellant, v. GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4254
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Brandon K. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2755
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tareyan COOKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-0886
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    William V. LOPERENA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-643
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Brandon David SUMMERLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-3142
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Maurice Franklin FINKLEA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2451
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    QUIROZ CARPENTRY CORP. and Norguard Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Yoni LOPEZ PORTILLO, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3794
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Derek Clayton SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1222
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Timothy GOODSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2861
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Monique WOOD, Nikki Clark and Darcy Cavell, Appellants, v. Marshall CASSEDY, Jr., Appellee.
    No. 1D17-2001
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    M.G., Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3241
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Deltras Ladon JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1158
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Charles Edward STARLING, Appellant, v. Sonya Gallagher STARLING, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2651
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Curtis Wayne HODGES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-540
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    S.W., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3347
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Sharrod M. MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4297
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Demetrius L. WALKER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4424
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 05, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed. Denied.


text:
    Nicholas D. WARREN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-3641
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 3, 2019 Rehearing Denied February 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert FLECK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4833
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Annique LESAGE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0464
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 01, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Danny J. LAROCCO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0553
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 01, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Curtis Novell YOUNG, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0125
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Dontrey Lynch WEBSTER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4870
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Thearon SAMPSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0209
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Luis Miguel ROMERO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0250
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 01, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    Todd D. MINNIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0294
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 01, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Arthur LITTLE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-5014
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Kenneth James KENDRICK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4933
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 01, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Gregory Lanard GUNN, Sr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0061
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Terry COLLINS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0051
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 01, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Patrick A. BURNS, II, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0013
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Kevirent BRUNODAGE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4262
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Jamel Lee BELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-5058
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Denis Lee HARGROVE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0135
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 01, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Arabella HOOTEN, Dana M. Jodon-Hooten and Damon Hooten, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. PEDIATRIX MEDICAL GROUP OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4497
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    REVIVE PHARMACY, INC., et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Aji Kan NAMALA, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2126
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a Ameriprise Ins. Auto & Homes Ins., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Ashley FULLER, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3250
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted. Dismissed.


text:
    Earl BUTLER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-5055
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 01, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Justin L. CHRISTOPHER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0386
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    John SAUER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-0744
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    G.L., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3653
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    A. Z., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3925
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    P.M., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4329
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Charles Edward DAY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Bob DILLINGER, Simone Lennon, Cynthia Bryant, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4156
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred.


text:
    George MILLER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0418
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred.


text:
    Jamie GEER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0453
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Elizabeth CALLAHAN, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. AMEDISYS FLORIDA, LLC, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0295
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    ELITE AUTO SALES, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Alex PETRO, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4887
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Tait LUNDQUIST, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Karen LUNDQUIST, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4569
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Amanda ROBBINS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. ZIPRECRUITER, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4042
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. TOWN OF LONGBOAT KEY, FLORIDA, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3162
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Peter F. TAYLOR & Andrea J. Taylor, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-0547
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Tyron D. WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-1245
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Eric Orlando FOWLER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3875
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Alejandro MONDRAGON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0150
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Jason Paul STEINBRINK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-5002
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Kevin Oneal GRAHAM, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4966
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Willie J. CLARK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4964
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Terrick M. CROSBY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4278
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Counsel is denied.


text:
    Trevond WATTS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3189
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Rayon Jefter WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3282
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Dora DELGADO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2387
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    James D. FRIZZELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2908
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    Christopher SCHOFIELD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Grady C. JUDD, Sheriff of Polk County, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4827
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    Matthew PATTERSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0001
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Harry Paul HETT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2449
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed. Denied.


text:
    Sarah Jo MERRIMAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Thomas M. KNIGHT, Sheriff of Sarasota County, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0746
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 25, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred.


text:
    Christian HERRERA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-0932
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Pam BROWN, as Beneficiary of the Shirley M. Brown, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Sarah Kathryn B. ROWE, AS TRUSTEE OF the Shirley M. BROWN, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-1943
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Rhett R. REARDIN and Rebecca W. Reardin, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4882
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Writ of prohibition is denied.


text:
    Gregory PERRY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Jane E. BLACKMAR and Jack E. Blackmar, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-5038
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 06, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Jeffrey Lamont BRINSON, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4105
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 06, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Scott W. MCDOWELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-1314
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Gerald Dennis LINDENGREN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-1617
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    January 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Gregory Lanard GUNN, Sr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-5119
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 01, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Robert FEINSCHREIBER and Margaret Kent, Appellants, v. PESCANOVA, INC., Appellee.
    No. 3D18-881
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kurt MARIN and Maurice Symonette, Appellants, v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Appellee.
    No. 3D18-635
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Elena Yamile FARAH, etc., Appellant, v. The GUARDIAN INSURANCE & ANNUITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, etc., Appellee.
    No. 3D18-142
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Barry YAMPOL, Appellant, v. TURNBERRY ISLE SOUTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2752
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.A., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2307
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Edward Revenous BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-64
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    84 SHOPPING PLAZA CORPORATION, Appellant, v. BRU'S ROOM BIRD ROAD, LLC, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-310
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Conrad Anthony THITCHENER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-728
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 24, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kristina Marie Lawhon GRIFFIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1784
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    January 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Serge LEGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-3099
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 17, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jermaine HENDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1197
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 3, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    O.G., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2709
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 24, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tom Douglas HOOVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3387
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 24, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tammi FITZGERALD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3413
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 24, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Felicia JEFFERSON, Appellant, v. Kimberla MILLER and Anthony Miller, Appellees.
    Nos. 4D18-1423 & 4D18-1424
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 24, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jean L. CESAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-2605
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 24, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-2908
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 24, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Anthony B. JONES a/k/a Benjamin Johnson, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-3343
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 24, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    C.P., the Father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and the Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.
    No. 4D18-3402
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 24, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Melvin ROBINSON, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-459
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 24, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Stephen KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-527
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 24, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ronald RIVERA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-915
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    January 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-2629
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 24, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Dennis Michael CREAMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2178
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Darrius SALGADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3260
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    John MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2846
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kevin GAMBLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-3394
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 24, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Julie LANE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3981
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Anthony HOLLIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2684
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Andrew Carl SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1695
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Patrick R. VALENTI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3972
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Sara Beth MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3949
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Donald Ray BEAN, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3098
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Cassie Alana TURNER, Appellant, v. Timothy Joseph GALVIN, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1623
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Avonte Treshawn VAUGHAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1280
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Marcela Sabas CIFUENTES, Appellant, v. Nora CIFUENTES and Nora Marie Sabas, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D18-1417
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Patricia Diane Price PARRIS and Darrell G. Price, Appellants, v. Philip C. ROSEN, as Ancillary Personal Representative in the Estate of Fronice Selph Price, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1240
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Clifford R. SAULTER, Appellant, v. Vanessa MOLL, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1057
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Cyana SCOTT, Appellant, v. Leonard WILLIAMS, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-810
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Audrey BRUNER, Appellant, v. TBOM MORTGAGE HOLDING, LLC., Kid City U.S.A., Inc., Mark A. Bruner, Ridgewood Family 2700 Trust, LLC as Trustee for Ridgewood Family Trust 2700, Rose Ann Tornatore, Individually and as Trustee, et al, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D18-1152
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Chantelle DAVIS, Appellant, v. Josephine DURDEN and Larry Dean Clardy, Jr., Appellees.
    Case No. 5D18-351
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Brian GRIGGS, Appellant, v. Keyla PEREZ, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-232
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Daniela PARRA, a Minor, BY AND THROUGH Elkin PARRA, Father, Appellant, v. WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC. d/b/a Downtown Disney, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-138
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    KSG AMERICA, LLC, Appellant, v. US BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS Legal Title TRUSTEE FOR TRUMAN 2016 SC6 TITLE TRUST, Issac Lanard a/k/a Isaac Lanard, Jr. and Chase Groves Community Association, Inc., Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-3939
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Paolo STANCHI, Appellant, v. 3 FATHOMS, INC., University of Miami, Blue Wilderness Dive Expeditions, cc a/k/a Blue Wilderness and Mark Addison, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-2773
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Joseph J. PISULA, Appellant, v. Michelle Lee PISULA, as Guardian Advocate of Megan Pisula, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2698
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Joseph J. PISULA, Appellant, v. Michelle Lee PISULA, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2680
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    S.T., Father of D.M., J.M. and S.T., Children, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3286
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    James Beecher DENISSEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2854
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 8, 2019 Rehearing Denied January 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Lisa GEMS, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2476
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed January 8, 2019 Rehearing Denied February 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Marion GANT and Letha Gant, Appellants, v. US BANK, NA as TRUSTEE FOR CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-WFHE3, ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-WFHE3, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3306
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed December 31, 2018 Rehearing Denied February 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    State of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellant, v. Tammy PATE, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4562
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 10, 2019 Rehearing Denied February 18, 2019
    Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, and Glen A. Bassett, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Marie A. Mattox, Marie A. Mattox P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

The Department of Corrections appeals the final judgment in favor of Appellee in this retaliatory discharge case. The Department argues that the trial court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict because Appellee failed to prove a causal link between her firing and a prior discrimination suit she filed against the Department. We agree because the "cat's paw" theory of liability advanced by Appellee at trial is largely foreclosed by this court's decision in State v. Bracewell , 220 So.3d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), and was not otherwise supported by the evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and remand for entry of judgment in favor of the Department.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions

Wolf, Lewis, and Wetherell, JJ., concur.

      The trial court did not have the benefit of the Bracewell opinion at the time of the trial.


author: Wetherell, J.

text:
    Timothy BARBER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-3782
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 10, 2019 Rehearing Denied February 19, 2019
    Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Wetherell, J.

Appellant was convicted of multiple offenses arising out of a fight in the parking lot of a fried chicken restaurant, including "burglary of conveyance with person assaulted" (count I) and battery (count III). Appellant raises four issues on appeal, only one of which merits discussion: whether his convictions on counts I and III violate double jeopardy. We affirm.

Appellant was charged in count I with burglary of a conveyance with assault or battery, and he was charged in count III with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. Both offenses involved the same victim and occurred during the same criminal episode, and both offenses were predicated on the same act: a beating administered to the victim while he was sitting in his car.

The jury found Appellant guilty as charged on count I and guilty of the lesser included offense of battery on count III. On count I, the jury specifically found that in the course of the burglary Appellant committed both an assault and a battery. The trial court adjudicated Appellant guilty of both offenses and sentenced him to the scoresheet minimum of 97.43 months in prison on count I and time-served on count III.

Appellant contends that his convictions on counts I and III violate double jeopardy. We review this claim de novo. Graham v. State , 207 So.3d 135, 137 (Fla. 2016) ("Double jeopardy claims based on undisputed facts present questions of law and are subject to de novo review.").

Double jeopardy bars dual convictions for burglary with battery and simple battery. See Spradley v. State , 537 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). It also bars dual convictions for burglary with assault and/or battery and simple battery when it is unclear whether the jury convicted the defendant of burglary with assault or burglary with battery. See Babrow v. State , 62 So.3d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) ; Young v. State , 43 So.3d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) ; Torna v. State , 742 So.2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

Here, the verdict form for count I reflects that the jury found Appellant guilty of both burglary with assault and burglary with battery. Accordingly, the cases cited above are distinguishable. Cf. Torna , 742 So.2d at 367 (suggesting that "in future cases involving charges of a violation of section 810.02(2)(a), the jury be tendered a verdict form that clearly indicates perhaps by boxes to be checked off whether the conviction is of burglary with an assault or burglary with a battery, so as to avoid the double jeopardy issues addressed in the instant case.").

Double jeopardy does not bar dual convictions for burglary with assault and simple battery because the offenses include different elements and none of the exceptions in section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes, apply. See Garcia v. State , 594 So.2d 806, 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) ("The elements of assault ... and the elements of battery ... are distinctly different, and assault is not a necessarily lesser included offense subsumed in the offense of battery."). Accordingly, because the jury verdict clearly shows that Appellant was found guilty of burglary of a conveyance with assault in count I, he could be convicted and sentenced for that offense and the offense of battery in count III without violating double jeopardy.

For these reasons (and because we find no merit in the other issues raised by Appellant), we affirm Appellant's judgment and sentence.

AFFIRMED .

Wolf and Lewis, JJ., concur.

      See § 810.02(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016) ("Burglary is a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment ..., if, in the course of committing the offense, the offender ... [m]akes an assault or battery upon any person.") (emphasis supplied).

      The verdict form provided:

      The battery offense was listed as an "additional offense" on the scoresheet, but for some reason, 0 points (rather than 0.2 points) were attributed to that offense. See § 921.0024(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016) (providing for 0.2 points or each additional offense that it a misdemeanor); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.992(a) (same). Thus, the battery conviction had no impact on Appellant's scoresheet or sentence.

      The statute provides three exceptions to the general rule that a defendant may be convicted and sentenced for each offense committed in the course of a single criminal episode: (1) offenses which require identical elements of proof; (2) offenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute; and (3) offenses which are lesser offenses, the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense. § 775.021(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2016)


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    Veniko Marquel BYRD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D18-5262
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 12, 2019
    Veniko Marquel Byrd, pro se, Petitioner.
    Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the merits.

Bilbrey, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.


text:
    Reginald SMITH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D18-4586
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 12, 2019
    Reginald Smith, pro se, Petitioner.
    Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.

DISMISSED . See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d)(5).

B.L. thomas, C.J., and Bilbrey and Jay, JJ., concur.


text:
    Terry L. MIXON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D18-2986
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019
    Terry L. Mixon, pro se, Petitioner.
    Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

Bilbrey, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.


text:
    Seth SUTHERLAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2400
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 18, 2019
    Caleb D. Rowland and William M. Blume of Blume and Rowland, PLLC, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
    Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The Court has determined that the appeal is untimely. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Any request for belated appeal must be filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c).

Bilbrey, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.


text:
    Nicholas Dwight BYRAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-26
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 15, 2019
    Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joanna A. Mauer, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

Nicholas Byram ("Byram") appeals his convictions and sentences on four grounds, only one of which merits discussion. He contends the trial court fundamentally erred by violating his double jeopardy rights through his separate convictions for resisting arrest with and without violence.

Byram was convicted on, among other charges, one count of resisting arrest with violence and one count of resisting arrest without violence. Because a defendant's continuous resistance to an ongoing attempt to effect his arrest can be convicted only as one count of resisting arrest, we reverse. See Johnson v. State , 246 So.3d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). As the conviction for resisting without violence violates double jeopardy, it must be vacated and, if the reversal alters the lowest permissible sentence, Byram should be resentenced.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with instructions.

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Rowe and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.


text:
    Gregory ROLAND, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D18-3651
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 12, 2019
    Gregory Roland, pro se, Petitioner.
    Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.

DISMISSED . See Baker v. State , 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

Roberts, Wetherell, and Makar, JJ., concur.


author: Wolf, J.

text:
    Glen Alan BRADSHAW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4992
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 18, 2019
    Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Wolf, J.

Glen Alan Bradshaw challenges his convictions for both dealing in stolen property and petit theft involving the same property. He asserts that the trial court violated section 812.025, Florida Statutes, when it adjudicated him guilty of both offenses. We agree and remand to the trial court to vacate the conviction and sentence for petit theft.

Section 812.025, Florida Statutes, provides:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single indictment or information may, under proper circumstances, charge theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct in separate counts that may be consolidated for trial, but the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts.

Stated differently, "[a]djudicating a defendant guilty of both theft and dealing in stolen property in accordance with a plea of guilty or no contest violates section 812.025, if the offenses were 'in connection with one scheme or course of conduct.' " Anucinski v. State , 148 So.3d 106, 108 (Fla. 2014). As the jury was instructed here, " '[o]ne scheme or course of conduct' means that there was no meaningful disruption of the defendant's conduct by either an interval of time or a set of circumstances." Fla. Std. Jury Instr. 14.2.

The State presented evidence that appellant stole sawblades from his place of employment, Yesco Scaffolding and Rentals. Appellant approached a Yesco customer about purchasing the sawblades while on the Yesco premises, and sold them to the Yesco customer later that day. Appellant told police he sold the blades the day after he obtained them. During closing argument, the State accepted appellant's version of when he took the property. Appellant argues this case is similar to Blackmon v. State , 121 So.3d 535, 548 n.17 (Fla. 2013), in which the supreme court found a defendant who stole steel bars and sold them approximately two hours later committed the offenses in connection with one scheme or course of conduct.

The State argues, however, that even a single day is a sufficient break in time to justify a conviction for both offenses. Case law does not support the State's position. In Williams v. State , 121 So.3d 524, 526 (Fla. 2013), the defendant stole video game systems and other electronics from someone's home and sold some of them to a pawn shop the following afternoon. The supreme court held the record did not reflect a " 'clearly disjunctive interval of time or set of circumstances' 'to meaningfully disrupt the flow' of Williams' conduct." Id. at 534 (quoting Rife v. State , 446 So.2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) ). See also Sykes v. State , 201 So.3d 201, 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("Without some evidence evincing a meaningful disruption, a four-day separation between a theft and dealing in stolen property will not support two convictions for the same course of conduct."); Stallworth v. State , 538 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (holding where a defendant stole television sets and sold them four days later, the offenses were part of the same scheme or course of conduct); Jones v. State , 453 So.2d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (holding the theft of a car stereo and the sale of that stereo two days later were part of the same scheme or course of conduct). We find this case law mandates that we remand this case to the trial court for appropriate action.

Appellant argues the appropriate remedy is to remand for the trial court to strike the theft conviction, which is the lesser offense. He is correct. See Adoye v. State , 224 So.3d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

We, therefore, remand with instructions that the trial court vacate the conviction for petit theft. Appellant need not be present.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED .

Lewis and Rowe, JJ., concur.


text:
    Juan Ricardo Jackson MELENDEZ and Jessica Santo Rivera, Petitioners, v. Donald Deland EVERSOLE and Michele Marie Eversole, His Wife, Respondents.
    No. 1D18-3534
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 18, 2019
    Paul M. Eza and Michael L. Glass of Stone, Glass & Connolly, LLP, Jacksonville, for Petitioners.
    Benjamin E. Richard, Curry G. Pajcic, and William A. Bald of Pajcic & Pajcic, P.A., Jacksonville, for Respondents.
   Per Curiam.

Petitioners seek certiorari review of the order allowing Respondents to amend their counterclaim to assert a claim for punitive damages. In such a proceeding, the scope of our review is limited to determining whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes. We, conversely, lack "jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence proffered to support the punitive damages claim." Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Smith , 263 So.3d 133, 2018 WL 5915019 (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 13, 2018) (citing Globe Newspaper Co. v. King , 658 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla. 1995) and additional cases). Because the trial court complied with the applicable procedural requirements, the petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED .

Wolf, Osterhaus, and Jay, JJ., concur.


text:
    Frank DEPINTO, Appellant, v. Robin SHADER and Rachael Fillingame, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-5296
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 20, 2019
    Frank DePinto, pro se, Appellant.
    No appearance for Appellees.
   Per Curiam.

Because the order sought to be reviewed is neither a final order nor an appealable nonfinal order, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110 and 9.130.

Bilbrey, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.


text:
    Frank DEPINTO, Appellant, v. Robin SHADER and Rachael Fillingame, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-5240
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 20, 2019
    Frank DePinto, pro se, Appellant.
    No appearance for Appellees.
   Per Curiam.

DISMISSED as duplicative.

Bilbrey, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.


author: PER CURIAM:

text:
    STATE EX REL. Jermence ROGERS v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-1971
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 18, 2019
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF WEBSTER
   PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. See State v. Parker , 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Relator's application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; State ex rel. Glover v. State , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated several applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joshua VALLO
    No. 2018-KP-0304
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 18, 2019
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF WEBSTER
   PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claim, relator fails to carry his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Anderson CLARK
    No. 2018-KH-1978
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 18, 2019
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS
   PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator's application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; State ex rel. Glover v. State , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated several applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Larry LINDSEY
    No. 2019-KH-0022
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 18, 2019
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS
   PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator's application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; State ex rel. Glover v. State , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated several applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.


author: WEIMER, J., would grant.

text:
    IBERIABANK v. WESTCHESTER APARTMENTS, L.L.C., Kevin U. Stephens, and Cheryll Bowers Stephens
    NO. 2018-CC-1604
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 18, 2019
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE 24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON
    Writ denied.
   WEIMER, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

GENOVESE, J., would grant this writ for the following reasons:

I fully agree with the well-reasoned dissent of Judge Windhorst. Additionally, I find the trial court abused its discretion in not separating, addressing, and granting Iberia Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment.

This is a suit on a note by the bank against the defendants. Defendants claim abuse of rights and lack of good faith. There are no genuine issues of material fact as to the principal demand. The note has become due and remains unpaid. The bank filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. In their answer, defendants did file affirmative defenses and a reconventional demand, which were totally unrelated to the promissory note due and owing. Defendants failed to provide factual evidence supporting its affirmative defenses and reconventional demand. More importantly, defendants failed to produce any factual evidence of any defense to the promissory note that would preclude summary judgment. Consequently, the bank has been "hung out to dry" while waiting for unrelated incidental demands to be litigated. This defeats the intent and spirit of summary judgment, creates unnecessary delay, and protracts litigation.

I would grant the writ, reverse the lower courts' denial of summary judgment, and grant Iberia Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST OF E.A.D.
    No. 2019-CJ-43
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 18, 2019
    ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, FOR THE PARISH OF LAFAYETTE
    Writ denied.
    HUGHES, J., dissents and would grant and assigns reasons.
    Hughes, J., dissents and would grant the writ.
   Respectfully, I would grant the writ. One night spent with flesh and blood should not disqualify the grandparents. I note Judge Conery's concurrence also; these children should be allowed to maintain a relationship with their grandparents.


author: PER CURIAM

text:
    Khristy Goins RISMILLER, TUTRIX FOR Daniel Edwards GOINS v. GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    NO. 2018-CC-2089
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 18, 2019
    ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF CONCORDIA
   PER CURIAM

Granted. In their application to this court, relators ask us to pass on the constitutionality of La. Civ. Code arts. 2315.1 and 2315.2 insofar as the court of appeal found those articles do not provide a right of action for adopted children to assert wrongful death and survival actions following the death of a biological parent. Because relators did not raise this claim in the district court, it is not properly before this court. See Vallo v. Gayle Oil Company, Inc., 94-1238 (La. 11/30/94), 646 So.2d 859, 864 ("[t]he long-standing jurisprudential rule of law is: a statute must first be questioned in the trial court, not the appellate courts ...").

However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of relators' constitutional arguments, we find it appropriate to remand this case to the district court to allow relators to amend their petition in an attempt to remove the objection presented by the exception of no right of action. See La. Code Civ. P. Art. 934 ; Reeder v. North , 97-0239 (La. 10/21/97), 701 So.2d 1291, 1299.

Accordingly, the writ is granted for the sole purpose of remanding the case to the district court to allow relators to amend their petition in an attempt to state a right of action. In all other respects, the writ is denied.


text:
    IN RE: Philip Martin KLEINSMITH
    NO. 2018-B-2010
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 18, 2019
    ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
   PER CURIAM

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") has filed a petition seeking the imposition of reciprocal discipline against respondent, Philip Martin Kleinsmith, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana and Colorado, based upon discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Colorado.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Between 2012 and 2014, respondent, a solo practitioner, represented a bank in seventy-four real estate foreclosure actions. Respondent hired a title company to provide services for these foreclosure cases. The title company charged respondent approximately $ 55,000. In turn, respondent billed the bank for the title services. Respondent received payment from the bank for those services, but instead of remitting the funds to the title company, he used the funds to pay other expenses of his law firm. On December 21, 2016, the Supreme Court of Colorado ordered that respondent be disbarred for conversion of client funds.

After receiving notice of the Colorado order of discipline, the ODC filed a motion to initiate reciprocal discipline proceedings in Louisiana, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21. A copy of the "Order and Notice of Disbarment" and "Opinion and Decision Imposing Sanctions under C.R.C.P. 251.19(b)" issued by the Supreme Court of Colorado was attached to the motion. On December 10, 2018, we rendered an order giving respondent thirty days to demonstrate why the imposition of identical discipline in this state would be unwarranted. Respondent failed to file any response in this court.

DISCUSSION

The standard for imposition of discipline on a reciprocal basis is set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21(D). That rule provides:

Discipline to be Imposed. Upon the expiration of thirty days from service of the notice pursuant to the provisions of paragraph B, this court shall impose the identical discipline ... unless disciplinary counsel or the lawyer demonstrates, or this court finds that it clearly appears upon the face of the record from which the discipline is predicated, that:
(1) The procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; or
(2) Based on the record created by the jurisdiction that imposed the discipline, there was such infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the clear conviction that the court could not, consistent with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject; or
(3) The imposition of the same discipline by the court would result in grave injustice or be offensive to the public policy of the jurisdiction; or
(4) The misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in this state; ...
If this court determines that any of those elements exists, this court shall enter such other order as it deems appropriate. The burden is on the party seeking different discipline in this jurisdiction to demonstrate that the imposition of the same discipline is not appropriate.

In the instant case, respondent has made no showing of infirmities in the Colorado proceeding, nor do we discern any from our review of the record. Furthermore, we feel there is no reason to deviate from the sanction imposed in Colorado as only under extraordinary circumstances should there be a significant variance from the sanction imposed by the other jurisdiction. In re: Aulston , 05-1546 (La. 1/13/06), 918 So.2d 461. See also In re Zdravkovich , 831 A.2d 964, 968-69 (D.C. 2003) ("there is merit in according deference, for its own sake, to the actions of other jurisdictions with respect to the attorneys over whom we share supervisory authority").

Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to defer to the Colorado judgment imposing discipline upon respondent. Accordingly, we will impose the same discipline against respondent as was imposed in Colorado and order that he be disbarred.

DECREE

Considering the Petition to Initiate Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the record filed herein, it is ordered that respondent, Philip Martin Kleinsmith, Louisiana Bar Roll number 27250, be and he hereby is disbarred. His name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys, and his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be revoked.

      In 2013, we imposed reciprocal discipline upon respondent in the form of a public reprimand, based upon discipline imposed in Utah and Arizona. In re: Kleinsmith , 13-0283 (La. 3/8/13), 108 So.3d 1166.
      Respondent's status with the Louisiana State Bar Association has been inactive since November 20, 2014.


text:
    Richard Lee HILL, Jr. and Glenn Elvin Smith v. BECHTEL OG & C CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.
    NO. 2018-CC-1974
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 18, 2019
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE THIRTY-EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF CAMERON
   PER CURIAM

Granted. Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement are intertwined with its arguments relating to the nullity of the underlying agreement. Therefore, the issue is properly presented to the arbitrator, not the court. See Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna , 546 U.S. 440, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006) ; Cambas Electric, Inc. v. McDonnel Group, LLC , 16-1774 (La. 10/28/16), 208 So.3d 377. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed and relators' exception of prematurity is granted.

Hughes, J., would deny.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Clifford HAMPTON
    No. 2018-OK-0156
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 13, 2019
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. JAMES
   PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. Respondent pleaded guilty to murder in 1959 for an offense he committed as a juvenile and was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for the balance of his natural life. At that time, the crime of murder was not differentiated into degrees. In Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders, finding instead that the sentencing court must first hold a hearing to consider mitigating factors, such as a defendant's youth and attendant characteristics, before imposing this severe penalty. In Montgomery v. Louisiana , 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016), the United States Supreme Court further stated:

Giving Miller retroactive effect, moreover, does not require States to relitigate sentences, let alone convictions, in every case where a juvenile offender received mandatory life without parole. A State may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole, rather than by resentencing them.

Montgomery , 577 U.S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 736. Respondent here seeks resentencing to a sentence of life with the possibility of parole, which the state opposes, and the district court has granted funding for respondent to procure assistance in presenting mitigation evidence. However, a provision of law exists remedying any Miller violation by providing for respondent's parole eligibility. Louisiana Revised Statute 15:574.4(D)(1) provides:

Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any person serving a sentence of life imprisonment who was under the age of eighteen years at the time of the commission of the offense, except for a person serving a life sentence for a conviction of first degree murder ( R.S. 14:30 ) or second degree murder ( R.S. 14:30.1 ), shall be eligible for parole consideration pursuant to the provisions of this Subsection if all of the following conditions have been met ....

Respondent is a person serving a sentence of life imprisonment who was under the age of eighteen years at the time of the commission of the offense. Therefore, he shall be eligible for parole consideration pursuant to the provisions of the subsection (when all of the conditions enumerated in that subsection are met). The exception for a person convicted of first or second degree murder does not apply to him because he pleaded guilty to murder before the legislature in 1973 divided the crime of murder in Louisiana into separate offenses of first and second degree murder. See State ex rel. Jenkins v. State , 17-0302 (La. 8/31/18), 252 So.3d 476.

Therefore, we grant the state's writ application and reverse the trial court's grant of mitigation funding. However, we also direct the Department of Corrections to revise respondent's prison master record to reflect that his sentence is not without benefit of parole. Further, the Department is directed to revise respondent's prison master record according to the criteria in La.R.S. 15:574.4(D)(1) to reflect an eligibility date for consideration by the committee on parole pursuant to La.R.S. 15:574.4(D)(2), (3).

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons:

As I have noted previously, adversarial proceedings are the norm in our system of criminal justice, while ex parte proceedings are the disfavored exception that may be invoked in good faith only in very limited circumstances. See State v. Brown , 16-0274 (La. 4/22/16), 192 So.3d 720 (Crichton, J., concurring). In the present case, the defendant sought and shockingly obtained substantial public funding ($ 50,400) in an ex parte proceeding that defendant contends he needs to show eligibility for parole pursuant to Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana , 577 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 718, 736, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016). Notably, defendant here need not even make that showing at all because he is automatically eligible for parole consideration in accordance with La.R.S. 15:574.4(D)(1). In the absence of the parole eligibility provided by this statute, however, I emphasize that the expenditure of public resources ought to be carefully tailored to the question of whether or not a defendant, who committed murder as a juvenile, is entitled to parole eligibility. As I have previously written, in making this determination, a court should focus on the facts of the underlying conviction and defendant's criminal history, if any, as well as the defendant's behavior record during confinement. See State v. Allen , 18-1042 (La. 11/5/18), 255 So.3d 998. Moreover, while there are certainly some instances where mitigation hearings such as these are absolutely necessary, those instances generally are the exception and not the norm. See State v. Harris , 18-KP-0686 (La. 6/15/18), 245 So.3d 1036 (Crichton, J., concurring, noting that defendant's generic allegation of prejudice did not rise to the level necessary for an ex parte hearing for public funds for a Miller hearing); See also State v. Pascual , 16-KP-2167 (La. 6/29/17), 222 So.3d 35 (Crichton, J., concurring, noting that "neither Miller nor Montgomery expressly requires government funding for an expert witness in every instance...." and "the necessity of an expert witness should be determined on a case-by-case basis).


text:
    FILMORE PARC APARTMENTS II v. Norman S. FOSTER, Officer and Director of Finance, City of New Orleans, Erroll G. Williams, Assessor, Orleans Parish and the Louisiana Tax Commission
    NO. 2018-C-2050
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 11, 2019
    Denied.


text:
    CAMSOFT DATA SYSTEMS, INC. v. SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS SUPPLY, INC. and Active Solutions, LLC
    NO. 2018-02088
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 11, 2019
    Denied.


text:
    James R. LESTAGE in His Official Capacity as District Attorney of the 36th Judicial District, Beauregard Parish v. Michael Dwayne HARRIS
    NO. 2018-C-1851
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 11, 2019
    Denied.


author: GUIDRY, J., recused.

text:
    IN RE: L.D.B. Applying for Intra Family
    Adoption of E.B.
    NO. 2018-CJ-1864
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 11, 2019
    Denied.
   GUIDRY, J., recused.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    Ervin MARSHALL, Individually and on Behalf of His Acknowledged Minor Child Ervin Marshall, III v. Jared SANDIFER (Individually and in His Official Capacity as a Trooper with the Louisiana State Police), Michael D. Edmonson (Individually and in His Official Capacity as Colonel with the Louisiana State Police) and Louisiana State Police, Through Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
    NO. 2018-C-1907
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 11, 2019
    Denied.


text:
    Randall Scott ILES v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
    NO. 2018-C-2016
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 11, 2019
    Denied.


author: GUIDRY, J., would grant.

text:
    Mia MCDANIEL v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., and Marcia Daniel and Horace Mann Property and Casualty Insurance Company and Dusty Treat Agency, LLC and XYZ Insurance Company
    NO. 2018-CC-1852
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 11, 2019
    Denied.
   GUIDRY, J., would grant.


text:
    IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-574115
    NO. 2019-BA-0234
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 13, 2019
    Granted. Petitioner is allowed to take the Louisiana State Bar Examination. Upon satisfactorily passing the examination, petitioner may apply to this court for the appointment of a commissioner in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 9, to take evidence and report to this court as to whether petitioner has the appropriate character and fitness to be admitted to the bar and allowed to practice law in the State of Louisiana.


author: HUGHES, J., would grant.

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kyren Davonta EBY
    NO. 2018-KO-0762
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 11, 2019
    Denied.
   HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    CAMSOFT DATA SYSTEMS, INC. v. SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS SUPPLY, INC. and Active Solutions, LLC
    NO. 2018-02018
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 11, 2019
    Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST OF S.M., Jr.
    NO. 2019-CK-0112
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 11, 2019
    Reconsideration denied.


text:
    Ann STREIFFER, Wife of/and Richard Streiffer v. DELTATECH CONSTRUCTION, LLC, and Sandra Tomasetti
    NO. 2018-C-2107
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 18, 2019
    Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Roy R. DIXON
    NO. 2018-KH-1909
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 18, 2019
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.


text:
    Sidney HANDY v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2018-CI-1916
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 18, 2019
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Keith KISACK
    NO. 2019-KK-0248
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 13, 2019
    Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Charles GUIDRY, Jr.
    NO. 2018-KH-1940
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 18, 2019
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).


text:
    TRINA HEALTH PARTNERS, LLC, et al. v. TRINA HEALTH, LLC, et al.
    NO. 2018-CC-1889
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 18, 2019
    Denied.
   WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rodrick COLEMAN
    NO. 2018-KO-0830
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 18, 2019
    Denied.


text:
    Mary ELLEN and Bruce Fleury v. The BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS FOR the CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
    NO. 2018-C-2106
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 18, 2019
    Denied.


author: WEIMER, J., would grant the rehearing.

text:
    Jo Schernbeck HODDINOTT v. Reginald Kenning HODDINOTT, III
    NO. 2018-C-1474
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    February 18, 2019
    Rehearing denied.
   WEIMER, J., would grant the rehearing.

CLARK, J., would grant the rehearing.