author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Charles SALVAGIO v. STATE of Alabama
    CR-17-0095
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    October 12, 2018
    William N. Clark and William H. Mills, Birmingham, for appellant.
    Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and Stephen N. Dodd, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Charles Salvagio appeals the circuit court's order finding him guilty of criminal contempt, as defined by Rule 33.1(b)(3)(b), Ala. R. Crim. P. Salvagio was ordered to be confined in the Jefferson County jail for 72 hours and was ordered to pay a $100 fine in compliance with § 12-11-30(5), Ala. Code 1975.

The record indicates that Salvagio was one of the attorneys who represented Steven Petric in his capital-murder trial, at the end of which Petric was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Petric v. State, 157 So.3d 176 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). In May 2015, Petric filed a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

On August 29, 2017, an evidentiary hearing was held on Petric's Rule 32 petition. Judge Tracie Todd presided. At the beginning of the evidentiary hearing, the State invoked the general exclusionary rule for witnesses. Salvagio was the first witness. He testified that, immediately before the evidentiary hearing, he had briefly spoken with Dr. Kimberley Ackerson, another potential witness in the Rule 32 hearing, about the case. Judge Todd later admonished all witnesses that they were not to have any conversations or contact with other witnesses and that they were not to discuss the case with anyone until the process was concluded. The evidentiary hearing continued the following day, and Salvagio was again called to testify. During Salvagio's testimony, he testified that the previous night, he had telephoned Rick Miller, another potential witness in the Rule 32 proceeding, and briefly discussed the case with Miller. Later in the hearing, following a second admonishment by Judge Todd for witnesses to refrain from discussing the case with anyone connected to Petric's case, Edward Tumlin, Salvagio's cocounsel during Petric's trial, testified that Salvagio had also called him the night before and briefly discussed what had happened in court the previous day.

On August 31, 2017, the circuit court issued an order instructing Salvagio to "show cause as to why his conduct [was] not a display of willful disobedience or resistance to the Court's unambiguous and lawful order not to have contact with anyone involved with [Petric's Rule 32] petition." (C. 9.)

On September 20, 2017, Salvagio filed a "Petition for Disqualification and Recusal," requesting that Judge Todd recuse herself from his contempt proceedings. (C. 94.) Salvagio claimed that it was a violation of Canons 2 and 3.C of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics for Judge Todd to preside over his contempt proceeding because there was "an appearance of impropriety" and "that her impartiality might be reasonably questioned in that she [publicly] identified [Salvagio] as a supporter, financial and otherwise, of her political opponent in a contested judicial election, and his co-counsel in Mr. Petric's trial." (C. 94-96.) On September 21, 2017, before the contempt proceeding, arguments were heard from counsel regarding the recusal issue. Judge Todd denied Salvagio's petition for recusal. After Judge Todd's denial of Salvagio's request for recusal, Salvagio moved the court to stay the contempt proceeding to allow him time to file a petition for mandamus on the recusal matter, which motion the circuit court denied.

The circuit court subsequently held a contempt proceeding. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that Salvagio had disregarded an order from the circuit court and held Salvagio in contempt of court. Salvagio appealed the circuit court's contempt adjudication.

On appeal, Salvagio argues that the circuit judge erred by failing to recuse herself from his contempt proceedings. Salvagio claims that Judge Todd's presiding over his contempt proceeding violated Canons 2 and 3.C of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Specifically, Salvagio alleges that Judge Todd's impartiality might reasonably be questioned because Judge Todd questioned him on the witness stand regarding his support -- financial and otherwise -- of her political opponent.

To support his argument, Salvagio cites the following testimony that occurred during Petric's Rule 32 evidentiary hearing:

"THE COURT [Judge Todd]: While they're doing that, Mr. Salvagio, did Ms. Ladner[ ] come to you as a donor for her campaign or to be on her campaign committee?
"[Salvagio:] Judge, I think she basically wanted to know if she could use my name, I believe.
"THE COURT: On her campaign?
"[Salvagio:] I don't know, Judge.
"THE COURT: Did you contribute to her campaign?
"[Salvagio:] I don't think I gave her any money. I'm not sure. I give money to everybody.
"THE COURT: Were you on Judge Cole's[ ] committee or contribute to his campaign?
"[Salvagio:] I did.
"THE COURT: Okay. Do you know how much you gave to Judge Cole's campaign?
"[Salvagio:] I gave him $500.
"THE COURT: Okay. Was that both times he ran or --
"[Salvagio:] I don't know, Judge. He was running against you --
"THE COURT: No, seriously, not because I ran against him, but --
"[Salvagio:] No, I probably did, Judge. I don't remember. I know the last time I did."

(R. 170-71.) The State maintains on appeal that the testimony was "banter" that was irrelevant to the proceeding, which occurred on the first day of the evidentiary hearing before the question of Salvagio communicating with other witnesses arose. (State's brief, at 30.)

When the recusal motion was addressed by the parties and the circuit court before the contempt proceeding, Judge Todd stated that the questions "had to do with the outrageousness of the information that [she] was hearing about the way the trial was conducted," and that she had asked the questions during the Rule 32 proceeding in an attempt to understand why the trial court would allow Salvagio to remain as Petric's defense counsel when Salvagio was "operating in the manner that Mr. Salvagio was operating in." (C.R. 12-13.) In her written order adjudicating Salvagio guilty of contempt, Judge Todd further addressed the recusal issue. Judge Todd acknowledged that, during the Rule 32 proceeding, she questioned Salvagio about his political contributions in support of Judge William Cole, her political opponent in a judicial campaign. However, Judge Todd stated that the line of questioning was not based on Salvagio's "rightful choice to contribute to the Court's opponent in the 2012 General Election," and she asserted that "Salvagio's political involvement with Judge Cole became relevant to the Rule 32 proceedings." (C. 15.) Judge Todd continued to support her decision to deny the recusal motion by stating that the court "became interested in all possible circumstances that would explain what seemed to be nonsensical happenings" in Petric's trial, and that her questions regarding Salvagio's campaign contributions were "based wholly on the possibility of irregular allowances afforded to Mr. Salvagio as lead trial counsel in Mr. Petric's capital murder case." (C. 15.)

"All judges are presumed to be impartial and unbiased," Woodall v. State, 730 So.2d 627, 638 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997), aff'd in pertinent part, rev'd on other grounds, 730 So.2d 652 (Ala. 1998), and "[t]he burden i[s] on the party making a motion to recuse to establish that the trial judge is biased or prejudiced against the defendant." Stallworth v. State, 868 So.2d 1128, 1140 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001).

"The burden is on the party seeking recusal to present evidence establishing the existence of bias or prejudice. Otwell v. Bryant, 497 So.2d 111, 119 (Ala. 1986). Prejudice on the part of a judge is not presumed. Hartman v. Board of Trustees, 436 So.2d 837 (Ala. 1983) ; Duncan v. Sherrill, 341 So.2d 946 (Ala. 1977) ; Ex parte Rives, 511 So.2d 514, 517 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986). ' "[T]he law will not suppose a possibility of bias or favor in a judge who is already sworn to administer impartial justice and whose authority greatly depends upon that presumption and idea." ' Ex parte Balogun, 516 So.2d 606, 609 (Ala.1987), quoting Fulton v. Longshore, 156 Ala. 611, 46 So. 989 (1908). Any disqualifying prejudice or bias as to a party must be of a personal nature and must stem from an extrajudicial source. Hartman v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama, 436 So.2d 837 (Ala. 1983) ; Reach v. Reach, 378 So.2d 1115 (Ala. Civ. App. 1979). Thus,
" ' "[T]he disqualifying prejudice of a judge does not necessarily comprehend every bias, partiality, or prejudice which he may entertain with reference to the case, but must be of a character, calculated to impair seriously his impartiality and sway his judgment, and must be strong enough to overthrow the presumption of his integrity." '
" Ross v. Luton, 456 So.2d 249 at 254 (Ala. 1989), quoting Duncan v. Sherrill, 341 So.2d 946, 947 (Ala. 1977), quoting 48 C.J.S. Judges § 82(b)."

Ex parte Melof, 553 So.2d 554, 557 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989), abrogated on other grounds by Ex parte Crawford, 686 So.2d 196 (1996). " 'Adverse rulings during the course of the proceedings are not by themselves sufficient to establish bias and prejudice.' Hartman v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama, 436 So.2d 837, 841 (Ala. 1983)." Ex parte Adams, 910 So.2d 827, 829 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). Furthermore, " 'a mere accusation of bias that is unsupported by substantial fact does not require the disqualification of a judge.' " Id.

Canon 2A, Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, provides, in pertinent part:

"A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

Canon 3C.(1)(a), provides, in pertinent part:

"(1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his disqualification is required by law or his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
"(a) He has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding ...."

In Ex parte Duncan, 638 So.2d 1332 (Ala. 1994), the Alabama Supreme Court explained:

"Under Canon 3(C)(1), Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, recusal is required when 'facts are shown which make it reasonable for members of the public or a party, or counsel opposed to question the impartiality of the judge.' Acromag-Viking v. Blalock, 420 So.2d 60, 61 (Ala. 1982). Specifically, the Canon 3(C) test is: 'Would a person of ordinary prudence in the judge's position knowing all of the facts known to the judge find that there is a reasonable basis for questioning the judge's impartiality?' Matter of Sheffield, 465 So.2d 350, 356 (Ala. 1984). The question is not whether the judge was impartial in fact, but whether another person, knowing all of the circumstances, might reasonably question the judge's impartiality -- whether there is an appearance of impropriety. Id.; see Ex parte Balogun, 516 So.2d 606 (Ala. 1987) ; see, also, Hall v. Small Business Administration, 695 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. 1983)."

638 So.2d at 1334.

"The standard for recusal is an objective one: whether a reasonable person knowing everything that the judge knows would have a 'reasonable basis for questioning the judge's impartiality.' [ Ex parte] Cotton, 638 So.2d [870] at 872 [ (Ala. 1994) ]. The focus of our inquiry, therefore, is not whether a particular judge is or is not biased toward the petitioner; the focus is instead on whether a reasonable person would perceive potential bias or a lack of impartiality on the part of the judge in question. In In re Sheffield, 465 So.2d 350, 357 (Ala. 1984), this Court wrote:
" '[T]he reasonable person/appearance of impropriety test, as now articulated in Canon 3(C)(1), in the words of the Supreme Court of the United States, may "sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties." In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 625, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955). As stated in Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Ethics, "An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society," and this requires avoiding all appearance of impropriety, even to the point of resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of recusal.'
"(Some emphasis original; some emphasis added [in Bryant ].)."

Ex parte Bryant, 682 So.2d 39, 41 (Ala. 1996).

"Any disqualifying prejudice or bias as to a party must be of a personal nature and must stem from an extrajudicial source." Ex parte Melof, 553 So.2d 554, 557 (Ala. 1989), abrogated on other grounds, Ex parte Crawford, 686 So.2d 196 (Ala. 1996).
" ' "The alleged bias and prejudice to be disqualifying must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.' "

Ex parte Duncan, 638 So.2d at 1334, quoting Ex parte Large, 501 So.2d 1208, 1210 (Ala. 1986), quoting in turn United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966).

Applying these principles to Salvagio's contention that Judge Todd should have recused herself from his contempt proceeding, we must determine "whether a reasonable person would perceive potential bias or a lack of impartiality on the part of the judge in question" based on the particular facts underlying this case. Bryant, 682 So.2d at 41.

Considering the facts of this particular case, we agree with Salvagio that Judge Todd should have recused herself in this matter. Salvagio presented facts of an apparent prejudice or bias that would make it reasonable for members of the public and a person of ordinary prudence to question her impartiality. The potential perceived bias -- i.e., Salvagio's contribution and support of Judge Todd's opponent in a judicial election -- was of a personal nature. Judge Todd stated that her questions were relevant to the Rule 32 proceedings because she became interested in all possible circumstances to explain the happenings of the trial. Judge Todd also stated that her questions were based on the possibility of irregular allowances afforded to Salvagio, presumably by the trial judge, during the trial. Our review of the Rule 32 evidentiary hearing indicates that these allegations were not alleged by either party during the Rule 32 proceeding and were not relevant. Judge Todd's line of questioning to Salvagio raises the appearance of impropriety or impartiality under Canon 3.C(1), Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics.

We recognize that Judge Todd may not have actual bias or lack impartiality in this case. However, we find that a reasonable person would perceive potential bias or a lack of impartiality on the part of the Judge Todd, based on her failure to recuse after questioning Salvagio regarding his support of her political opponent. This is especially so because Salvagio was under oath and on the witness stand in Judge Todd's courtroom when she asked those questions. Judge Todd had a clear duty to recuse herself from the contempt proceedings and to allow another judge to handle the contempt hearing.

The judgment in this matter is reversed and Judge Todd is ordered to recuse herself from presiding over Salvagio's contempt proceeding. A new judge shall be assigned to this matter in accordance with the established recusal procedure in the Jefferson Circuit Court. This cause is hereby remanded to the circuit court for a new trial on the issue of contempt, consistent with this opinion. In view of the fact that we have ordered Judge Todd to recuse herself from the contempt proceeding and directed the circuit court to conduct a new hearing, we pretermit any ruling on issues concerning the circuit court's disposition of Salvagio's contempt adjudication.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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

      We note that Salvagio raised other issues on appeal, including arguments challenging the validity of the court's finding of contempt. However, because of the disposition of the current issue, we pretermit any discussion of further arguments.

      Ms. Ladner was one of Salvagio's cocounsel during Petric's capital-murder trial.

      We note that Judge Cole was the trial judge in Petric's capital-murder case and opposed Judge Todd in her 2012 judicial campaign.

      The record in this case contains two separate transcripts. The record from the Rule 32 proceeding will be denoted as "(R. ----.)" The record from the contempt proceeding will be denoted as "(C.R. ----.)"


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: WINDOM, Presiding Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE of Alabama v. Harold Vincent STALLINGS
    CR-17-0403
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    October 12, 2018
    Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and Tracy M. Daniel, asst. atty. gen., for appellant.
    Jeremy W. Armstrong, Phenix City, for appellee.
   WINDOM, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal by the State of Alabama from an order of the circuit court granting postconviction relief to Harold Vincent Stallings pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P. Stallings's Rule 32 petition attacked his December 1999 sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole, which was enhanced with eight prior felony convictions from the State of Georgia. On August 18, 2000, this Court affirmed, by unpublished memorandum, Stallings's conviction for first-degree robbery and his resulting sentence. Stallings v. State (No. CR-99-0219). The certificate of judgment was issued on February 9, 2001.

On June 16, 2017, Stallings filed this, his second, Rule 32 petition in which he asserted that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to render a judgment or to impose a sentence because the Alabama Constitution of 1901 was enacted with discriminatory intent, thereby rendering the Alabama Criminal Code void. On July 31, 2017, the State filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the claim was precluded pursuant to Rules 32.2(a)(3) and 32.2(a)(5), Ala. R. Crim. P., was insufficiently pleaded, and was without merit. The circuit court appointed counsel for Stallings, and, on October 23, 2017, Stallings filed a response to the State's motion. In that filing, Stallings claimed that his sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole is illegal. Specifically, Stallings argued that the trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence him under the Habitual Felony Offender Act ("the HFOA"). Stallings contended that the State did not prove that his prior convictions in Georgia used to enhance his sentence were felony convictions or that the convictions had been commenced by an indictment signed by a grand-jury foreman as required by Rule 12.8, Ala. R. Crim. P. The circuit court set the matter for a hearing.

Following a hearing, the circuit court granted Stallings's Rule 32 petition. In its order granting the petition, the circuit court stated:

"A. Mr. Harold Stallings was convicted of Robbery 1st Degree by a jury of his peers and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole.
"B. At sentencing the State produced three certified copies of previous convictions. State's Exhibit A was a conviction from Muscogee County, Georgia for shoplifting whereby the certified copy of said exhibit indicated that the value of the property was $159.00. Said exhibit failed to provide or produce any evidence of the grand jury's finding that said conviction was a true bill and signed by the foreman of the grand jury.
"C. State's Exhibit B was a conviction from Muscogee County, Georgia for Possession of a Controlled Substance. The certified copy included information that the controlled substance was cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance. Said exhibit contained a listing of the grand jurors who returned said indictment.
"D. State's Exhibit C was a conviction from Muscogee County, Georgia for a 6 count indictment for Forgery First Degree. Said exhibit failed to contain any listing of the grand jurors who returned said indictment or the signature of the foreman of the grand jury who returned said indictment.
"....
" Rule 12.8(a), Ala.[R].Crim.P. states that an indictment shall not be returned without the concurrence of at least twelve (12) grand jurors and Rule 12.8(b) further requires that when an indictment is found, it must be endorsed 'A True Bill,' and the indictment must be signed by the foreman. The indictment shall be returned and filed in open court by the foreman in the presence of at least eleven (11) other members of the grand jury.
"BASED upon the foregoing, it is hereby;
"ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
"1. The trial Court was without jurisdiction to impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole in this case. The Court finds that the Petitioner's conviction for shoplifting, pursuant to State's Exhibit A, would not be a felony if convicted in Alabama. Alabama Code [1975, §] 13A-8-5 [,] requires that the theft of the property involved does not exceed $500 and said offense is a misdemeanor. Therefore, said offense cannot be used under [the HFOA].
"2. State's Exhibit B supports that the Petitioner was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and said offense would be a felony if committed in Alabama. Said exhibit also contains evidence by certification of the grand jurors of Muscogee County, Georgia and the name of the foreman who returned said indictment. As such, said conviction can be used under [the HFOA].
"3. State's Exhibit C does not support that said conviction should be used under [the HFOA]. The Petitioner was convicted of forgery 1st degree in Georgia. Alabama Code Section 13A-9-2 states:
" 'A person commits the crime of forgery in the first degree if, with intent to defraud, he falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument which is or purports to be, or which is calculated to become or to represent if completed:
" '(1) Part of an issue or series of stamps, securities or other valuable instruments issued by a government or governmental agency; or
" '(2) Part of an issue or series of stock, bonds or other instruments representing interests in or claims against a business enterprise or property.
" '(b) Forgery in the first degree is a Class B felony.'
"The information contained in the certified copy of said conviction from the State of Georgia does not contain information to support a conviction under Alabama law of all [6] counts. The accusation contained in said exhibit states that the Petitioner did then and there unlawfully with intent to defraud, knowingly possess a certain writing to wit: Authorization drawn on the account of Michael Stallings in the amounts of $150.00 up to $300.00 per count. Furthermore, said Exhibit is defective in that there is no information or any listing of the jurors who returned said indictment nor is the name of the foreman of the grand jury listed.
"4. Therefore, the Petitioner has one prior felony and under the [HFOA], the proper sentence of the Court would be imprisonment for life or for any term of not more than 99 years but not less than 15 years.
"5. Furthermore, upon review of the facts and evidence in this case, this Court finds that the sentence imposed by the trial court constitutes cruel and unusual punishment."

(C. 38-41.) The circuit court vacated Stallings's sentence and imposed a sentence of life in prison. The State filed a timely appeal.

On appeal, the State claims that the circuit court erroneously determined that the forgery convictions could not be used under the HFOA to enhance Stallings's sentence. Stallings has conceded the error in his brief on appeal. (Stallings's brief, at 5.)

Stallings was afforded an opportunity to prove his claim at an evidentiary hearing.

"When the circuit court conducts an evidentiary hearing, '[t]he burden of proof in a Rule 32 proceeding rests solely with the petitioner, not the State.' Davis v. State, 9 So.3d 514, 519 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006), rev'd on other grounds, 9 So.3d 537 (Ala. 2007). '[I]n a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., proceeding, the burden of proof is upon the petitioner seeking post-conviction relief to establish his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence.'
Wilson v. State, 644 So.2d 1326, 1328 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994). Rule 32.3, Ala. R. Crim. P., specifically provides that '[t]he petitioner shall have the burden of ... proving by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to entitle the petitioner to relief.' '[W]hen the facts are undisputed and an appellate court is presented with pure questions of law, that court's review in a Rule 32 proceeding is de novo.' Ex parte White, 792 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Ala. 2001). 'However, where there are disputed facts in a postconviction proceeding and the circuit court resolves those disputed facts, "[t]he standard of review on appeal ... is whether the trial judge abused his discretion when he denied the petition." ' Boyd v. State, 913 So.2d 1113, 1122 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (quoting Elliott v. State, 601 So.2d 1118, 1119 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) )."

Marshall v. State, 182 So.3d 573, 581 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014). Here, there are no disputed facts. The State challenges only the circuit court's application of the law to the facts. Consequently, this Court will review the circuit court's ruling de novo, with no presumption of correctness.

The circuit court granted Stallings's petition on three grounds. The circuit court found that Stallings's prior forgery convictions could not be used to enhance Stallings's sentence because Stallings's conduct did not constitute a felony in Alabama and because the charging instrument submitted by the State at his sentencing did not contain the signature of the grand-jury foreman or a list of the grand jurors. The circuit court also granted relief on the basis that Stallings's sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. This Court will address each ground in turn.

First, the circuit court found that the prior forgery convictions could not be used to enhance Stallings's sentence because Stallings's conduct did not constitute a felony in Alabama. If true, Stallings's enhanced sentence would be illegal. See Ginn v. State, 894 So.2d 793, 796 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) (citing Carter v. State, 853 So.2d 1040 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002) ).

"It is well settled that '[i]n determining whether an out-of-state conviction will be used to enhance punishment pursuant to the HFOA, the conduct upon which the foreign conviction is based must be considered and not the foreign jurisdiction's treatment of that conduct.' Daniels v. State, 621 So.2d 335, 342 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992).... [P]ursuant to Rule 26.6(b)(3)(iv), Ala. R. Crim. P., the proper inquiry is whether the conduct upon which the foreign conviction was based would have been a felony in Alabama had it been committed on or after January 1, 1980. Rule 26.6(b)(3)(iv) specifically provides:
" 'Any conviction in any jurisdiction, including Alabama, shall be considered and determined to be a felony conviction if the conduct made the basis of that conviction constitutes a felony under Act 607, § 130(4), Acts of Alabama 1977, p. 812 (§ 13A-1-2(4), Alabama Criminal Code), or would have constituted a felony under that section had the conduct taken place in Alabama on or after January 1, 1980; and further, a conviction of a crime against the United States shall be considered to be a felony conviction if that crime is punishable by imprisonment in excess of one (1) year under federal law, and was so punishable at the time of its commission, even if the conduct made the basis of that conviction would not be punishable under Alabama law.'
"(Emphasis added.) As the Alabama Supreme Court noted in Thompson v. State, 525 So.2d 820 (Ala. 1985), when discussing the predecessor to Rule 26.6(b)(3)(iv) :
" 'By adopting Temporary Rule 6, [the predecessor to Rule 26.6(b)(3)(iv), Ala. R. Crim. P.,] this Court placed emphasis on the "conduct" made the basis of the prior conviction, rather than where it occurred, or when it occurred. This Court, therefore, made the triggering mechanism not whether another jurisdiction might have punished the prior offense by imprisonment for more than one year, but whether Alabama considered the prior "conduct" so blameworthy as to merit more than one year's imprisonment. The wording of the rule, therefore, has the following effect: (1) A conviction for an "offense" committed in Alabama prior to January 1, 1980, or after January 1, 1980, for that matter, punishable by a sentence of more than one year, is a "felony conviction"; thus, the fact that a defendant was convicted in Alabama and received a sentence of more than a year would necessarily mean that the prior conviction is a "prior felony"; (2) A conviction in any other jurisdiction, at any time, for a criminal act punishable in the other jurisdiction by a sentence exceeding one year, however, is not a "felony conviction" unless the act "would have been" punishable under our own criminal laws on or after January 1, 1980, by a sentence exceeding one year.'
" 525 So.2d at 826 (some emphasis in original; some emphasis added)."

Ginn, 894 So.2d at 800 (footnote omitted).

In 1997 in Georgia, Stallings pleaded guilty to six counts of first-degree forgery for presenting checks belonging to another individual -- Michael L. Stallings -- in amounts varying from $150 to $300. Stallings was charged by way of accusation, which alleged that Stallings had, "with intent to defraud, knowingly possess[ed] a certain writing ... drawn on the account of Michael L. Stallings ... in such a manner that the writing as made purport[ed] to have been made by another ... and did deliver said writing to Columbus Bank and Trust." (C. 64.) At the time of Stallings's conduct in Georgia, § 13A-9-3, Ala. Code 1975, stated:

"(a) A person commits the crime of forgery in the second degree if, with intent to defraud, he falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument which is or purports to be, or which is calculated to become or to represent if completed:
"(1) A deed, will, codicil, contract, assignment or a check, draft, note or other commercial instrument which does or may evidence, create, transfer, terminate or otherwise affect a legal right, interest, obligation or status."

Stallings's conduct -- falsely completing a check with the intent to defraud -- clearly constituted the offense of second-degree forgery in Alabama. Second-degree forgery is designated as a Class C felony. See § 13A-9-3(b), Ala. Code 1975.

Stallings's claim as to his forgery convictions was without merit. Therefore, the circuit court erred as a matter of law in finding that Stallings's forgery convictions could not be used to enhance Stallings's sentence because his conduct did not constitute a felony in Alabama.

Second, the circuit court found that Stallings's prior forgery convictions could not be used to enhance Stallings's sentence because the charging instrument submitted by the State at his sentencing did not contain the signature of the grand-jury foreman or a list of the grand jurors. This finding attacks the sufficiency of the State's evidence to prove Stallings's prior convictions. This issue, however, does not implicate the jurisdiction of the trial court to impose sentence. See Ex parte Batey, 958 So.2d 339, 341 (Ala. 2006) ("The State is correct that the failure to prove a prior conviction is not a jurisdictional matter; therefore, consideration of that issue in a Rule 32 petition is precluded."). At the evidentiary hearing, the State aptly asserted that if there was an issue with the certified copies of Stallings's prior convictions, Stallings should have challenged the State's evidence at the sentencing hearing. (R. 11-12.) In other words, Stallings's claim "could have been but was not raised at trial." Rule 32.2(a)(3), Ala. R. Crim. P. Stallings offered no evidence to rebut the State's assertion of the procedural bar. See Rule 32.3, Ala. R. Crim. P. ("[O]nce a ground of preclusion has been pleaded [by the State], the petitioner ... [has] the burden of disproving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence.").

Moreover, even if Stallings's claim were not procedurally barred, it was without merit. A prior, out-of-state conviction may be proven by the State either by satisfying the requirements of § 12-21-70, Ala. Code 1975, or Rule 44(a)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P. See Ervin v. State, 630 So.2d 115, 119 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992). Rule 44(a)(1) provides:

"An official record kept within the United States, or any state ... thereof, ... when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by a person purporting to be the officer having the legal custody of the record, or his deputy. If the official record is kept without the state, the copy shall be accompanied by a certificate under oath of such person that he is the legal custodian of such record and that the laws of the state require the record to be kept."

Even though the State had no burden of proof at Stallings's evidentiary hearing, it presented the circuit court with exhibits of the evidence presented at Stallings's sentencing hearing. (C. 63-65.) The evidence offered to prove Stallings's six convictions for first-degree forgery complied with Rule 44(a)(1). Significantly, the Russell Circuit Court, in dismissing Stallings's first Rule 32 petition, specifically found the State's proof of Stallings's prior convictions to have been properly certified:

"[Stallings] also claims that only photo copies of his prior convictions [were] used to enhance his sentence. This claim by the Petitioner is false. In the Court file of the Circuit Court of Russell County are original certified copies of his prior convictions .... All of these are signed by M. Linda Pierce, Clerk of the Superior Court of Muscogee County, Georgia, and are imprinted with the Seal of the Superior Court."

(C. 66.)

Here, the circuit court found that the State had failed to offer charging instruments underlying his forgery convictions that contained the signature of the grand-jury foreman or a list of grand jurors. Such a standard exceeds the burden imposed on the State for proving a prior felony conviction. See Ginn, 894 So.2d at 798 (" 'Certified case action summaries and other certified records from the clerk of the court are sufficient to prove prior convictions.' " (quoting Daughtry v. State, 587 So.2d 1286, 1286 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) ) ).

Further, this Court's records indicate that Stallings pleaded guilty to six counts of first-degree forgery by way of accusation and that he waived indictment by a grand jury. See Ga. Code Ann. § 17-7-70. The State could not be expected to present evidence of an indictment signed by a grand-jury foreman or a list of grand jurors when Stallings waived indictment by a grand jury.

Stallings's claim was procedurally barred and without merit. Therefore, the circuit court erred as a matter of law in finding that Stallings's forgery convictions could not be used to enhance Stallings's sentence because the charging instrument submitted by the State at his sentencing did not contain the signature of the grand jury foreman or a list of the grand jurors.

Third, the circuit court found that Stallings's sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole constituted cruel and unusual punishment. This claim was raised neither in Stallings's petition nor at the hearing. It stands to reason that because Stallings never raised the claim he offered no evidence to prove such a claim. See Rule 32.3, Ala. R. Crim. P. Additionally, a claim that application of the HFOA renders a sentence cruel and unusual punishment has been repeatedly addressed and rejected by this Court. See Turner v. State, 610 So.2d 1198, 1201 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) ; Hannah v. State, 627 So.2d 1094 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993). Thornton v. State, 570 So. 2d 762, 774 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990) ; Flenory v. State, 588 So.2d 940 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) ; Powell v. State, 624 So.2d 220 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) ; Frazier v. State, 663 So.2d 1035 (Ala. Crim. App.1995) ; Malone v. State, 659 So.2d 1006 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995). Therefore, the circuit court erred as a matter of law in finding that Stallings's sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

The circuit court correctly found that Stallings's Georgia conviction for shoplifting had been erroneously used to enhance his sentence. Further, the circuit court correctly found that Stallings's conviction for possession of a controlled substance had been properly used to enhance his sentence. However, the circuit court erred in finding that Stallings's six convictions for first-degree forgery had been erroneously used to enhance his sentence.

At the time of his conviction for first-degree robbery in Alabama, Stallings had seven prior felony convictions that could be used to enhance his sentence; the State offered sufficient proof of those convictions. First-degree robbery is designated as a Class A felony. See § 13A-8-41(c), Ala. Code 1975. At the time Stallings committed first-degree robbery, the HFOA stated, in relevant part: "In all cases when it is shown that a criminal defendant has been previously convicted of any three felonies and after such convictions has committed ... a Class A felony, he must be punished by imprisonment for life without parole." § 13A-5-9(c)(3), Ala. Code 1975. Stallings's sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole was not illegal, and it was error for the circuit court to grant him relief.

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and this case is remanded to the circuit court to set aside its order granting Stallings's Rule 32 petition and to issue an order in accordance with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Welch, Kellum, Burke, and Joiner, JJ., concur.

      This Court may take judicial notice of its own records, see Hull v. State, 607 So.2d 369, 371 n.1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992), and we do so in this case.

      The State concedes that Stallings's conviction for shoplifting was improperly used for purposes of enhancement, and this Court agrees. Under § 13A-8-5, Ala. Code 1975, at the time of the offense, if the value of the stolen property did not exceed $250, the theft constituted a misdemeanor. Therefore, based on the value of the amount of property supporting the shoplifting charge in Georgia, that charge would not constitute a felony in Alabama at the time of the offense.

      Although the circuit court correctly found that it was error for the trial court to consider Stallings's conviction for shoplifting, this was error without injury. See Murphy v. State, 536 So.2d 96, 97-98 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986). The State properly proved the existence of seven prior felony convictions. Thus, a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole was the only legal sentence Stallings could have received.


author: KELLUM, Judge.

text:
    Dwaun Manriquez TOLBERT v. STATE of Alabama
    CR-17-0510
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    October 12, 2018
    K. Nickie Bateman, Troy, for appellant,
    Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and Beth Slate Poe, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
   KELLUM, Judge.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the appellant, Dwaun Manriquez Tolbert, pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree, see § 13A-8-41, Ala. Code 1975, and to breaking and entering a motor vehicle, see § 13A-8-11, Ala. Code 1975. The circuit court sentenced Tolbert to 240 months' imprisonment for the robbery conviction and 60 months' imprisonment for the breaking-and-entering conviction; the sentence was split and he was ordered to serve 3 years' imprisonment, followed by 24 months' supervised probation. The circuit court ordered Tolbert to pay $3,250 in restitution, $50 to the crime victims compensation fund and court costs.

Before pleading guilty, Tolbert reserved for appellate review the circuit court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence found as a result of the warrantless search of the content of his cellular telephone found at the crime scene.

The circuit court conducted a suppression hearing on January 30, 2018. At the hearing, Detective Terry Miles with the Troy Police Department testified that on December 18, 2016, he was assigned to investigate a robbery that took place at the Courtyard Marriott motel in Troy. Steven Smith, who was visiting from Florida, parked in the parking lot next to the door of his motel room. Detective Miles testified that Smith took some of his property into the motel room and, when he returned to the car to get some more things, Smith saw a black male sitting in his car. When Smith told the man to get out of his car, the man pointed a gun at Smith and took Smith's iPhone cellular telephone, as well as other property that was in Smith's car before fleeing the scene on foot. A K9 unit was called and was dispatched in the direction in which the perpetrator ran, but the dogs lost the scent around the M section of the Oak Grove Apartments. Detective Miles also "pinged" Smith's cellular telephone, and it appeared around apartment M-4 of the Oak Grove Apartments.

The following day, Smith found a cellular telephone in his car and telephoned Detective Miles. Detective Miles picked up the cellular telephone, put a property receipt on it, and logged it into evidence. Detective Miles testified that he then contacted the district attorney's office and was told that he did not need a search warrant for the phone, but that he should contact the district court judge to verify that. Detective Miles then contacted the judge, who explained that Detective Miles would not need a search warrant if he used the telephone only to identify the owner.

Detective Miles testified that he was unable to obtain the name of the owner of the cellular telephone from the "My Information" section on the telephone but did find the telephone number. Detective Miles then took a picture of the telephone number and scrolled through some of the photographs saved on the telephone in order to determine the owner of the cellular telephone. Detective Miles testified that he recognized the people in the pictures as Tolbert and his girlfriend, Octavia Brunson. Detective Miles subsequently learned that Brunson lived in apartment M-4 and that Tolbert lived there with her.

Detective Miles obtained a search warrant for Brunson's apartment. During the search of the apartment, Detective Miles found all of Smith's stolen property, with the exception of a computer. When interviewing Tolbert, Detective Miles learned that Tolbert's cellular telephone number was the same as the number for the cellular telephone found in Smith's car.

Tolbert's sole contention on appeal is that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence of the contents of his cellular telephone and all the evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless search of his cellular telephone. Specifically, Tolbert contends that the warrantless search was unreasonable because, he says, none of the exceptions to the warrant requirement apply, he "had a subjective and objective expectation of privacy over the contents of his cell phone," and leaving his cellular telephone at the crime scene did not evidence his intent to relinquish his expectation of privacy in the contents of the cellular telephone. (Tolbert's brief, p. 14.) The State contends that Tolbert abandoned his cellular telephone when he left it at the scene of the crime and, therefore, that Tolbert no longer had an expectation of privacy in his telephone after he left it in Smith's car.

"This Court reviews de novo a circuit court's decision on a motion to suppress evidence when the facts are not in dispute. See State v. Hill, 690 So.2d 1201, 1203 (Ala. 1996) ; State v. Otwell, 733 So.2d 950, 952 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)." State v. Skaggs, 903 So.2d 180, 181 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). In the instant case, the facts are uncontested; the only issue is the circuit court's application of the law to those facts. Therefore, this Court affords no presumption in favor of the circuit court's ruling.

Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, unless they fall within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. Urioso v. State, 910 So.2d 158, 159 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) ; Baird v. State, 849 So.2d 223, 229 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002) ; Chevere v. State, 607 So.2d 361, 368 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992).

"Those exceptions include: objects in plain view, consensual searches, a search incident to a lawful arrest, hot pursuit or emergency situations, probable cause coupled with exigent circumstances, and a Terry [v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ] 'stop and frisk' situation. Daniels v. State, 290 Ala. 316, 276 So.2d 441 (1973). Where a search is executed without a warrant, the burden falls upon the State to show that the search falls within an exception. Kinard v. State, 335 So.2d 924 (Ala. 1976)."

Ex parte Tucker, 667 So.2d 1339, 1343 (Ala. 1995).

It is well settled that " '[a] warrantless search or seizure of property that has been "abandoned" does not violate the fourth amendment. See e.g. Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 241, 80 S.Ct. 683, 698, 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960).' " Smith v. State, 557 So.2d 1322, 1325 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989) (quoting United States v. Thomas, 864 F.2d 843, 845 (D.C.Cir. 1989) ).

" ' "When individuals voluntarily abandon property, they forfeit any expectation of privacy in it that they might have had.
United States v. Berd, 634 F.2d 979, 987 (5th Cir. 1981). Therefore, a warrantless search or seizure of abandoned property is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. [Citations omitted.] The existence of police pursuit or investigation at the time of abandonment does not of itself render the abandonment involuntary. United States v. Colbert, 474 F.2d 174, 176 (5th Cir. 1973) ; see generally, e.g., Berd, 634 F.2d at 987, United States v. Canady, 615 F.2d 694 (5th Cir.), cert. denied. 449 U.S. 862, 101 S.Ct. 165, 66 L.Ed.2d 78 (1980) ; United States v. Williams, 569 F.2d 823 (5th Cir. 1978) ; [United States v.] D'Avanzo, 443 F.2d 1224 [ (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 850, 92 S.Ct. 86, 88, 30 L.Ed.2d 89 (1971) ].
" ' "The test for abandonment is whether an individual has retained any reasonable expectation of privacy in the object. [Citation omitted.] This determination is to be made by objective standards. United States v. Kendall, 655 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 941, 102 S.Ct. 1434, 71 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982). An expectation of privacy is a question of intent, which "may be inferred from words spoken, acts done, and other objective facts." '
" Carlisle v. State, 533 So.2d 645, 647 (Ala. Cr. App. 1987), quoting United States v. Jones, 707 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 859, 104 S.Ct. 184, 78 L.Ed.2d 163 (1983). (Emphasis added.)"

Thompson v. State, 680 So.2d 1014, 1016 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).

The United States Supreme Court addressed the warrantless search of the contents of a cellular telephone in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 381-82, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2482-83, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014). In Riley, the United States Supreme Court considered two cases, both of which involved the warrantless search of the contents of a cellular telephone by a police officer following the arrest of a defendant. In both cases, information retrieved from the cellular telephones was used to gather evidence to bring additional criminal charges against the defendants. The United States Supreme Court held that a warrant was required before a cellular telephone seized incident to an arrest could be searched. The Riley Court, however, also held:

"[E]ven though the search incident to arrest exception does not apply to cell phones, other case-specific exceptions may still justify a warrantless search of a particular phone. 'One well-recognized exception applies when " 'the exigencies of the situation' make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.' " Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. [452], at 459, 131 S.Ct. [1849] at 1856 [ (2011) ] (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 394, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) ).' Such exigencies could include the need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence in individual cases, to pursue a fleeing suspect, and to assist persons who are seriously injured or are threatened with imminent injury. 563 U.S. at 460, 131 S.Ct. 1849."

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. at ----, 134 S.Ct. at 2494.

In this case, unlike Riley, the search of Tolbert's cellular telephone did not occur following his arrest. Instead, the day following the robbery, Smith notified police that he had found a cellular telephone in his car and that the telephone did not belong to him. Detective Miles then performed a limited search of the cellular telephone to determine who owned it. Detective Miles recognized Tolbert and his girlfriend in a photograph on the telephone.

After further investigation, Detective Miles questioned Tolbert, who stated that his cellular telephone number was the same as the one for the cellular telephone found in Smith's car. Based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude, as the circuit court did below, that Tolbert abandoned his telephone at the scene of the crime when he left his telephone in Smith's car and, approximately 24 hours after the robbery, the telephone was found by Smith and turned over to police.

We are not persuaded by Tolbert's argument that he did not relinquish his expectation of privacy when he inadvertently left his cellular telephone at the crime scene. Although we can find no Alabama case in which we have addressed a defendant's expectation of privacy in a cellular telephone left at the scene of a crime, a Court of Appeals of Texas addressed this issue in Edwards v. State, 497 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. Ct. App. 2016). In Edwards, the defendant rode with three other men in a car to a "game room" and parked the car in the parking lot in front of the "game room." 497 S.W.3d at 161. After an exchange of gunfire, the defendant and the other men ran on foot, leaving the car behind. While processing the crime scene, police found a cellular telephone that had been left on top of the car. Police subsequently determined that the cellular telephone belonged to the defendant. The defendant moved to suppress evidence retrieved from the cellular telephone, and the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals addressed "whether the accused voluntarily discarded, left behind, or otherwise relinquished his interest in property so that he could no longer retain a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to it at the time of the search." Edwards, 497 S.W.3d at 160-61. The Texas court concluded that the defendant had voluntarily abandoned the cellular telephone because the defendant left the telephone on top of the car without taking it with him and, therefore, the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the cellular telephone. Edwards, 497 S.W.3d at 161.

Similarly, in this case Tolbert left his telephone in Smith's car during the commission of a crime. When Tolbert was confronted by Smith, Tolbert ran and abandoned his telephone in Smith's car. Because Tolbert abandoned the cellular telephone in Smith's car, Tolbert could not later claim an expectation of privacy in the cellular telephone. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err when it denied Tolbert's motion to suppress.

Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

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


text:
    Khiry Marquis ROSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2562
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Marcus JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2477
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ernest WATKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-5282
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Bjorn ROBINSON, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC. and Publix Risk Management/The Hartford, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
    No. 1D18-1129
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 24, 2019 Rehearing Denied July 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael Patterson SWAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4131
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher Lynn HADDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4039
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jesse MOODY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3985
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jarvis THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3895
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ural GRIMES Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D19-886
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael Patterson SWAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4291
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Paris L. PRYOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-5327
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Nathan Michael HAIFLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2746
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Todd Michael BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1525
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Brian Keith CARSTEN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D18-2487
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Anthony T. WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3368
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Odarius Lenard JAMISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3274
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Clifford WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4388
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Allen Dwayne TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3450
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Allen Dwayne TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3446
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Allen Dwayne TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3458
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Safon WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
    No. 1D19-1174
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Anthony Paul PEOPLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4825
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Allen Dwayne TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3464
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Allen Dwayne TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3463
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Allen Dwayne TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3452
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Richard Craig HATFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2499
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Matthew David DELEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2136
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Eugene V. ROSS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D19-2077
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Allen Dwayne TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3462
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Allen Dwayne TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3457
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Alvin GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3295
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Byron Zaid RAHMANN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3086
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Omar FELTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2819
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Allen Dwayne TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3461
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Allen Dwayne TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3459
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Allen Dwayne TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3454
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Andre MCKENZIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2661
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kennedy C. PRATHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-5461
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Damanecia ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3569
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Andrew Bernall JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2277
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jeffery D. DOSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4360
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Freemel BEST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-5201
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Eddie WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4733
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Allen Dwayne TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3460
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Branden Lovic ACKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4053
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jordan BLAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2870
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Demetris ALLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-5048
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Anthony H. GATES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4477
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Timothy James FORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-5138
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Sheri Lou DESHANE, R.N., Petitioner, v. State of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Respondent.
    No. 1D18-4320
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   DENIED.


text:
    Clinton E. GUPTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3416
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Herbert Levonn COLEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4606
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jimmie BARGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4550
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sam STROTHER, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3528
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Charles Scott MCKINNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3202
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    James C. STALLWORTH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4312
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jordan BLAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2868
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher MOSLEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D19-1932
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Deshur A. EARLY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3768
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Steven FIELDMAN and Siqi Sun, Petitioners, v. The UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
    No. 1D18-3334
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   DENIED.


text:
    W.J., Paternal Grandfather, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, IN the INTEREST OF E.J., a Minor Child, Respondent.
    No. 1D19-0728
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    J.D., Mother of L.D. and R.D., Minor Children, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    No. 1D19-530
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Richard Allen COONROD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2805
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Frederick STREATER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2558
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    David Raze BLUME, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1747
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    PREFERRED GOVERNMENTAL CLAIM SOLUTIONS and Brevard County Board of Commissioners, Appellants, v. Gary WINDHAM, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2891
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Dawellyne Adrian TERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4928
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Glen CARTER, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-3808
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Cody W. FROST, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0827
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Randal Thomas ROSADO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Carmine MARCENO, Sheriff, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0707
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Michael HARVEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3385
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 8, 2019 Rehearing Denied July 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Sheddrick S. FRAZIER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0761
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    April 03, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Jakeilah WEEKS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1682
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mandamus is denied.


text:
    Harry J. BRANCH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1305
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Writ of mandamus is dismissed.


text:
    Santos ROBLES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3115
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Harry C. WALTERS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4213
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Reginald A. KIT, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Ashley GARBER, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3153
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Roy COURAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3969
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Anthony D. RIGGINS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.:2D18-3910
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Kristen ALFORD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Michael ALFORD, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2667
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted. Dismissed. Denied.


text:
    Peter Alfred PANNERI, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3927
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Stace E. MCCOMB, a/k/a Stace Edward McComb & Laurie McComb, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-1264
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Darlene C. GOODRICH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-1417
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismiss.


text:
    Lavern JOHNSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1056
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Jessica SALEMAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1235
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    Randal Thomas ROSADO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1467
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Anthony CHAMBERS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1172
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 09, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Andre PAGAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1350
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 02, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Paul Anthony WHITE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1427
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Peter Demond KITT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2827
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Edward Walter ZABOROWSKI, III, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1455
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    James D. JOHNSON, Sr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4510
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed. Dismissed.


text:
    CCI INTL., LLC And Chronus Contruction, Inc., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. GF PROPERTIES, LM, LLC and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0334
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    John DOE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Department of Health, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1966
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mandamus is dismissed.


text:
    James C. DAY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. NEWTON DEVELOPMENT, INC. and Rosedale Golf Holdings, Inc., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0486
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Discharged. Writ of certiorari is dismissed. Granted. Remanded.


text:
    N.P., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4476
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Ari Johan ALEXANDER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1171
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Anthony P. JOHN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1095
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted. Vacated. Habeas corpus is denied. Denied.


text:
    Christina PAYLAN, M.D., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Carole MORALES and Louis Morales, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0793
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    April 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted. Denied. Certiorari is dismissed.


text:
    Owen D. DENSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0443
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred.


text:
    Marcus ANDERSON and Blue Oasis, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. SPACE PLAYHOUSE, LLC, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1634
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Craig Legwaine WILLIAMS Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Carmine MARCENO, Sheriff of Lee County Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1937
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    Steven C.A.B. WHITE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.:2D19-1818
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mandamus is denied.


text:
    Michael LANDER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3596
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Norvall SCOTT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1981
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Katherine SPEED, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. CITY OF DUNEDIN, et al, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-4435
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.

Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Donnis T. FOSTER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1538
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    T. F., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Ariel VEGUILLA, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1275
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    April 05, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Certiorari is denied.


text:
    Michael C. ESSIX, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. William HAMILTON, Warden, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1898
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    A.M., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4945
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 05, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Victor BREWER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0674
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Kendrick GRAHAM, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Grady C. JUDD, Sheriff of Polk County, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0890
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    John PANDO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0268
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Herbert MARSHALL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. The RESERVE AT the PLANTATION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4866
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Jermaine BRADFORD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-1865
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Enrique OLIVERA, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-2303
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 09, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted. Dismissed.


text:
    Kella MCCASKILL Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. The KOSLOW TRUST Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4643
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Felicia HARRIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. TAMPA HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4902
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB. d/b/a Christiana Trust, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Hector GOMEZ, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4641
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 05, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Dean PODSTUPKA, Sr. and Marcia Podstupka, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. T.D. BANK, N.A., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0745
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Eric JACOBS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Michael IVES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1324
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed. Denied. Denied as moot.


text:
    JT PRIVATE DUTY HOME CARE, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Patricia Raco TREAMER, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1566
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Emilie D. DIAZ, et al, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, et al, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1431
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Eric JACOBS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Charlotte A. IVES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1326
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 05, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Sean Patrick EMKE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-2034
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    CC HOLDINGS 2000, LLC and John T. Early, III Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1673
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Brian M. CASEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Donna ELM, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1679
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 05, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed. Denied.


text:
    Neelam T. UPPAL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WELLS FARGO, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.:2D19-1799
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 05, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Craig A. SMITH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-2126
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mandamus is denied.


text:
    Phillip Wayne COLLINS, II, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Mark INCH, Secretary D.O.C., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0449
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Kenny SILVA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1678
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Carlos Resharde ANDERSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.:2D19-1912
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Habeas corpus is denied.


text:
    Raymond Eric HALL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1922
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Habeas corpus is denied.


text:
    Gregory B. MYERS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4843
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.

Denied as moot.


text:
    Janet Brown RUDDOCK and Duval L. Ruddock, Sr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1684
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 05, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Albert M. ROBINSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. SECTION 23 PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1693
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 05, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Sarah Anne EDEN, et al, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Carrie Beth COOK, as Personal Representative, et al, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.:2D19-1213
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Jose Nascimento MARCONI, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INS. CO. a/s/o Christopher Neumann, Nickolas John Migliore, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.:2D19-1955
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Henry Roosevelt SMITH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1046
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Habeas corpus is denied.


text:
    David PILVER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARD, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1998
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 04, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Alex N. ALAHOUZOS, Sr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Allan J. BUSTILLO, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0964
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    GREEN LIFE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & CONSUMER SERVICES, DIVISION OF LICENSING, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0817
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Angela KREMPEL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Kristian KREMPEL, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4455
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted. Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Winston W. J. KAO, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2820
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Kyle Adair JONES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1245
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Nancy Jo GRANT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Charlotte ALLEN individually, and as Trustee of the Charlotte L. Allen Trust Deed October 20, 2005, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1695
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Ronald HOWARTH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Diane LOMBARDI, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1753
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Christina PAYLAN, M.D., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Lyann GOUDIE, Esq., Goudie & Kohn, a Limited Liability Corporation, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1729
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Kimo S. DAVID, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, O/B/O Janice DAVID-CROUCH, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-2267
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.

Dismissed.

Denied.


text:
    Debra MAXWELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1926
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Fredrick ALLEN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1730
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    Steven MACK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1876
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Ryan TOWNSEND, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0584
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mandamus is denied.


text:
    Timothy S. PLATT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1820
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Belated appeal is denied.


text:
    Napoleon REDDICK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1959
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mandamus is denied.


text:
    Tony HARRISON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1976
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Habeas corpus is denied.


text:
    Gregory William GOETZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Crystal Broussard GOETZ, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1700
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Brandon M. BOSTICK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1396
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Diego GONZALEZ-GARCIA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1523
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Jacinto VELASQUEZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0535
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Belated appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Peter MEIZIES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1288
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Manny M. POLLAK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WESTCHESTER GOLD FABRICATORS, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D17-3972
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Luis G. TAMAYO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. SUNCOAST CREDIT UNION, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1736
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Certiorari is denied.


text:
    Leon THOMAS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1742
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Ronald KOEKOEK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-2339
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Accepted. Mandamus is dismissed.


text:
    Alfred FINCHER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Rhonda JULIAN, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.:2D19-0865
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Elton BOLDUC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4839
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Roger G. BABCOCK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1520
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    David L. OSTEEN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4655
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Accepted. Belated appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Ulyssess SMITH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Tara Lenora SMITH, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1630
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Kenneth Lee HORN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0744
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    T.M., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1017
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Kevin DESRUISSEAUX, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Nicole BOWMAN, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1363
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed. Stricken.


text:
    Michael Eugene FABORITO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1312
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Quincy WATKINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2271
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Nelson HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1784
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    B.H., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1928
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 13, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.T., the father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D18-1672
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Bernard BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1343
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tyrese JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1009
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    William PETTY, et al., Appellants, v. The ARBITRAGE FUND, etc., Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1441
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Alexander M. ACS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2449
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Richard CHIN-SANG, Appellant, v. Damaris CHIN-SANG, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-0167
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Wayne BASS III, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-42
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 13, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Shimon WOLKOWICKI, et al., Appellants, v. In re: FLORIDA COMMUNITY BANK, N.A., etc., v. Water Place Group, LLC, etc., et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D18-1498
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Melody Gaskin MOBLEY, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., Appellee.
    No. 3D18-174
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sean MCCOY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2658
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jinelle GRILLE, Appellant, v. AIR 1 MECHANICAL, CORP. and Joanne Monzon, et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D18-301
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Darrell K. WILSON Sr., Appellant, v. CREDO LLC, et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D16-2725
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 20, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Erasmo POLACO and Vilma Polaco, Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellee.
    No. 3D16-797
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.