author: WELCH, Judge.

text:
    Martin Tracy MCBURNETT v. STATE of Alabama
    CR-16-1324
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    June 1, 2018
    Martin Tracy McBurnett, pro se.
    Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and Laura I. Cuthbert, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
   WELCH, Judge.

Martin Tracy McBurnett appeals from the circuit court's summary denial of his Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition. The petition challenged his convictions, following his entry of "best-interest" guilty pleas to: first-degree unlawful possession of marijuana, a violation of § 13A-12-213, Ala. Code 1975; first-degree rape, a violation of § 13A-6-61, Ala. Code 1975; two counts of first-degree sodomy, a violation of § 13A-6-63; sexual abuse of a child less than 12 years old, a violation of § 13A-6-69.1, Ala. Code 1975; and production of pornographic material depicting a minor, a violation of § 13A-12-197, Ala. Code 1975. The circuit court sentenced McBurnett to 10 years' imprisonment for the first-degree-possession-of-marijuana conviction; life imprisonment for the rape conviction; life imprisonment for each of his two sodomy convictions; 20 years' imprisonment for his sexual-abuse conviction; and life imprisonment for his conviction for the production of child pornography. The circuit court ordered that the sentences run consecutively. On October 30, 2009, McBurnett's convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, by unpublished memorandum. McBurnett v. State (No. CR-08-1149), 64 So.3d 1156 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009) (table). The certificate of final judgment was issued on February 16, 2010. McBurnett timely filed the instant Rule 32 petition on February 15, 2011. Subsequently, he filed three amendments to his petition. McBurnett's third and final amendment was filed on March 9, 2015. On March 17, 2015, the circuit court entered an order accepting McBurnett's amendments. On July 17, 2017, the State filed a motion to dismiss McBurnett's petition. On July 31, 2017, the circuit court entered an order addressing McBurnett's numerous claims. The circuit court vacated the plea of guilty to and accompanying sentence for sexual abuse of a child less than 12 years old. The circuit court otherwise granted the State's motion to dismiss the petition.

On August 28, 2017, McBurnett filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the July 31, 2017, order denying the petition and amendments. The circuit court denied the motion on August 30, 2017. On September 5, 2017, McBurnett filed a motion to supplement his motion to alter, amend, or vacate the July 31, 2017, order denying his petition. That motion was not ruled on. On September 6, 2017, McBurnett filed a motion to reconsider the order of July 31, 2017. That motion was not ruled on.

McBurnett appealed.

Appeal

Appellate review from the denial of a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition is undertaken with consideration of the following. "The petition must contain a clear and specific statement of the grounds upon which relief is sought, including full disclosure of the factual basis of those grounds." Rule 32.6(b), Ala. R. Crim. P. It is the petitioner's burden to plead in the petition a factual basis that, if proven to be true, reflects that the petitioner is entitled to relief from his sentence and/or conviction. Rule 32.3, Ala. R. Crim. P. " 'The standard of review on appeal in a postconviction proceeding is whether the trial judge abused his discretion when he denied the petition. Ex parte Heaton, 542 So.2d 931 (Ala.1989).' Elliott v. State, 601 So.2d 1118, 1119 (Ala.Cr.App.1992)." Strickland v. State, 771 So.2d 1123, 1125 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). However, "when 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). Moreover, except for utilizing on appeal a preclusionary bar, which neither the State pleaded, nor the circuit court cited, "when reviewing a circuit court's rulings made in a postconviction petition, we may affirm a ruling if it is correct for any reason." Bush v. State, 92 So.3d 121, 134 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). A circuit court may summarily dismiss a petitioner's Rule 32 petition pursuant to Rule 32.7(d), Ala. R. Crim. P.,

"[i]f the court determines that the petition is not sufficiently specific, or is precluded, or fails to state a claim, or that no material issue of fact or law exists which would entitle the petitioner to relief under this rule and that no purpose would be served by any further proceedings, the court may either dismiss the petition or grant leave to file an amended petition."

See also Hannon v. State, 861 So.2d 426, 427 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) ; Cogman v. State, 852 So.2d 191, 193 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002) ; Tatum v. State, 607 So.2d 383, 384 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992).

Moreover, to prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a Rule 32 petitioner must satisfy the two-pronged test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). First, a petitioner must identify the specific acts or omissions he or she alleges were not the result of reasonable professional judgment on counsel's part and show that these acts or omissions fall "outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance." 466 U.S. at 690. If a petitioner meets this burden, he or she must then show that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." 466 U.S. at 694. "A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id."The likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just conceivable." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 131 S.Ct. 770, 792, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 ). "A bare allegation that prejudice occurred without specific facts indicating how the petitioner was prejudiced is not sufficient." Hyde v. State, 950 So.2d 344, 356 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006). In the context of guilty-plea proceedings, this Court has held:

"When an appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel arises from alleged errors committed by counsel in the guilty plea process, the prejudice prong of the Strickland analysis is satisfied by the appellant's establishing 'that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he could not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.' "

Culver v. State, 549 So.2d 568, 572 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989) (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) ).

Also, "[u]nrefuted allegations in a postconviction petition must be accepted as true." McCary v. State, 93 So.3d 1002, 1008 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011), citing Ex parte Hodges, 147 So.3d 973 (Ala. 2011) ; Archie v. State, 6 So.3d 566 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008) ; Poole v. State, 988 So.2d 604 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007) ; and Thomas v. State, 908 So.2d 308 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004).

Finally, this Court may take judicial notice of the appellate record filed in McBurnett's direct appeal. See Hull v. State, 607 So.2d 369, 371 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) (noting that this Court may take judicial notice of its own records); Ex parte Salter, 520 So.2d 213, 216 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987) (same).

I.

McBurnett contends as a substantive error and as ineffective assistance of counsel that, during the guilty-plea proceedings, he was misinformed of the range of punishment and was not informed that the trial court could order that to be served concurrently or consecutively. Specifically, as to the minimum sentence, he asserts that he was told that the minimum sentence for his sex offenses was 10 years when it was actually 20 years. At the time of his conviction, § 13A-5-6(a)(5), Ala. Code 1975, stated that a sentence for a "Class A felony criminal sex offenses involving a child as defined in Section 15-20-21(5)" was not less than 20 years.

As previously stated, McBurnett filed his final amendment on March 9, 2015, and the circuit court issued its final order of judgment on July 31, 2017. On August 28, 2017, McBurnett filed a motion asking the circuit court to alter, amend, or vacate its July 31, 2017, order denying McBurnett's petitions and grant him relief. This motion presented for the first time the claims that he was misinformed of the range of punishment and that he was not informed that his sentences could be served concurrently or consecutively.

By presenting new claims in the motion to amend, McBurnett was in essence seeking another amendment to his petition. "Amendments to pleadings may be permitted at any stage of the proceeding prior to the entry of judgment." Rule 32.7(b), Ala. R. Crim. P.; Allen v. State, 825 So.2d 264, 268 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) (noting that amendments to Rule 32 petition should be "freely allowed"; however, "such amendments are permitted only 'prior to the entry of judgment.' Rule 32.7(b), Ala. R. Crim. P.").

Moreover, because the claims were not presented in McBurnett's petition or any of the amended petitions filed before the circuit court entered its judgment, they were not properly before the circuit court and are not now properly before this Court. "An appellant cannot raise an issue on appeal from the denial of a Rule 32 petition which was not raised in the Rule 32 petition." Arrington v. State, 716 So.2d 237, 239 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).

Moreover, these issues do not present a jurisdictional challenge allowing this Court to take notice ex mero motu. The trial court's failure to inform McBurnett that he could be ordered to serve consecutive sentences if he pleaded guilty and the trial court's failure to advise him of the maximum and minimum sentence on his guilty pleas go to the voluntariness of the pleas. A challenge to the voluntariness of a guilty plea is not jurisdictional. Fincher v. State, 837 So.2d 876, 878 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002) ; Cantu v. State, 660 So.2d 1026 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994) (holding that issue regarding failure to advise an appellant of the maximum and minimum sentence on a guilty plea may be waived). A claim asserting ineffective assistance of counsel is not a jurisdictional challenge. Mosley v. State, 616 So.2d 362 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) (holding that allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are not jurisdictional); Cogman v. State, 852 So.2d 191, 192 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is not jurisdictional).

Therefore, for the reasons above, these claims are not properly before this Court for review and will not be considered.

II.

McBurnett contends that the trial court's setting aside of his conviction and sentence for sexual abuse of a child less than twelve years old is clear proof that his counsel was ineffective because counsel advised him to plead guilty to what McBurnett calls a nonexistent offense, which McBurnett says prejudiced him. Therefore, McBurnett argues that "he is entitled to have all of his convictions and sentences set aside, vacated, or void." (McBurnett's brief, at p. 20.)

Aside from being nonsensical, this claim has been raised for the first time on appeal. Therefore, McBurnett has not preserved this issue for appellate review. Arrington v. State, 716 So.2d 237, 239 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) ("An appellant cannot raise an issue on appeal from the denial of a Rule 32 petition which was not raised in the Rule 32 petition.").

Morever, McBurnett's brief on this issue fails to comply with Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. App. P. That rule requires that an appellate argument contain "the contentions of the appellant/petitioner with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the cases, statutes, other authorities, and parts of the record relied on." "Failure to comply with Rule 28(a)(10) has been deemed a waiver of the issue presented." C.B.D. v. State, 90 So.3d 227, 239 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).

III.

McBurnett contends, both as a substantive issue and in support of his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, that he was not advised before entering his guilty pleas to first-degree rape, to two counts of first-degree sodomy, and to production of pornographic material that he would not be eligible for parole consideration pursuant to § 15-22-27.3, Ala. Code 1975, effective October 1, 2005.

This claim was presented to the circuit court in McBurnett's second amendment filed on October 21, 2013, where he claimed that his guilty pleas were not entered into knowingly, intelligently, and with a full understanding, because neither the trial court nor his counsel informed him that "all of the sexual offenses involving a child less than twelve years of age carried sentences that were barred from parole per Ala. Code 1975, § 15-22-27.3." (C. 33.) He further asserted that he suffered prejudice as a result of counsel's failure because he would not have pleaded guilty had he known the consequences. In an affidavit attached to his second amended Rule 32 petition, McBurnett averred:

"Affiant avers that at no time did the trial court, Honorable Circuit Judge William Allen Millican, inform this affiant that the sentences the trial court could impose upon the felony offenses of: Rape-First Degree; Sodomy-First Degree, (Two Counts); Sexual Abuse With a Child Under The Age of Twelve; and, Production of Pornographic Material Depicting a Minor; were sentences to be served without possibility of parole.
"Affiant further avers that at no time did affiant's defense counsel advise that the sentences that could be entered by the trial court upon the felony offenses of Rape-1st Degree, Sodomy-1st Degree (two counts), Sexual Abuse With a Child Under The Age of Twelve, and Production of Pornographic Material Depicting a Minor were sentences that had to be served with[out ] benefit of a parole by the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles.
"...
"Affiant avers that had he known that the sentences imposed upon the sexual offenses that affiant entered guilty pleas to carried sentences that were barred from parole, then affiant avers that he would not have entered guilty pleas to such offenses."

(C. 61-62.) In its response, the State did not dispute that McBurnett was not advised that he was ineligible for parole; rather, the State argued that ineligibility for parole was a discretionary consequence to pleading guilty of which McBurnett was not entitled to be advised.

"As to the second amendment filed by the Defendant to his Initial Petition for Relief, the State of Alabama ... [a]s to the ... allegation dealing with the provisions of Code of Alabama 1975, Title 15, § 15-22-27.3, the State of Alabama would aver that its parole statute call[s] for discretionary rather than mandatory action on the part of the parole board. It does not contain any language that mandates parole. As a result thereof, where the statute is framed in discretionary terms, there is no liberty interest created that is entitled to the protection of due process. Gaines v. State, 415 So.2d 1 (1982) ; Thomas v. Sellers, 691 F.2d 487 (11th Cir. 1982). As a result of the foregoing, such allegation fails to meet the requirement of the Strickland test, and fails to provide any basis upon which to grant any relief to the Defendant."

(C. 79.) In its July 31, 2017, final order, the circuit court denied this claim for the reasons set forth by the State as quoted above.

The State and the circuit court were incorrect in asserting that McBurnett was not entitled to be informed that he was ineligible for parole.

In McCary v. State, 93 So.3d 1002, 1004 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011), this Court stated:

" Section 15-22-27.3 [, effective October 1, 2005,] provides that '[a]ny person convicted of a criminal sex offense involving a child as defined in subdivision (5) of Section 15-20-21 which constitutes a Class A or B felony shall not be eligible for parole.' Section 15-20-21(5), Ala. Code 1975, defines a 'criminal sex offense involving a child' as '[a] conviction for any criminal sex offense in which the victim was a child under the age of 12 and any offense involving child pornography.' "

The McCary Court reasoned:

"Although § 15-22-27.3 is not a sentence-enhancement statute but is a parole statute, its effect, in circumstances such as those in ... this case, is to increase the maximum possible sentence from life imprisonment to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole; thus, parole ineligibility under § 15-22-27.3 must be considered a direct consequence of a guilty plea, of which a defendant is entitled to be informed. Therefore, we hold that when the effect of parole ineligibility under § 15-22-27.3 is to increase the maximum sentence a defendant faces upon pleading guilty, a trial court must inform a defendant of his or her parole ineligibility under § 15-22-27.3 and the effect of that ineligibility on the maximum sentence, and the failure to do so will render the plea involuntary."

McCary v. State, 93 So.3d at 1007.

" ' "An accused is entitled to information concerning the direct consequences of his plea." ' " Danzey v. State, 703 So.2d 1019, 1020 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) (quoting Fearson v. State, 662 So.2d 1225, 1226 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995), quoting in turn Minnifield v. State, 439 So.2d 190, 192 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983) ). The ban on parole contained in § 15-22-27.3, Ala. Code 1975, applied to McBurnett. Thus, McBurnett was not eligible for parole and, as a result, his sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court was, in reality, a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Life in prison without parole was a direct consequence of McBurnett's plea of which he was entitled to be advised before pleading guilty. The circuit court's denial of relief on this issue was error.

Conclusion

McBurnett's issue III, alleging that the trial court and his counsel failed to advise him that he was ineligible for parole during the guilty-plea proceedings, was sufficiently pleaded and was presented in a timely filed petition, the facts underlying the claim were not disputed, the truth of the factual allegations are supported by the Rule 32 and direct appeal records, and an application of the law to the undisputed facts clearly establishes that McBurnett is entitled to relief.

"Therefore, as both this Court and the Alabama Supreme Court have done numerous times in the past when the record is clear on its face that a Rule 32 petitioner is entitled to relief, we grant that relief, rather than waste scarce judicial resources to remand for [the petitioner] to present evidence" Williams v. State, 104 So.3d 254, 265 n. 5 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012), citing

" Ex parte A.D.R., 690 So.2d 1208 (Ala. 1997[6] ), on remand, 690 So.2d 1210 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) (ordering the granting of relief on appeal from the summary dismissal of a Rule 32 petition where the record clearly established that the petitioner was entitled to relief); and Andrews v. State, 78 So.3d 1012 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011) (Welch, J., dissenting) (it is unnecessary to remand for the Rule 32 petitioner to present evidence to prove a claim where the record before this Court clearly established that the claim-that the petitioner's guilty plea was involuntary-entitled the petitioner to relief; this Court should reverse the summary dismissal of the petition and order relief). See also Ragland v. State, 40 So.3d 763 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009) ; Barr v. State, 4 So.3d 578 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008) ; Nickens v. State, 981 So.2d 1165 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007) ; Casteel v. State, 976 So.2d 505 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007) ; Lawrence v. State, 953 So.2d 431 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) ; Wilson v. State, 943 So.2d 803 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) ; Watkins v. State, 941 So.2d 343 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) ; Peake v. State, 931 So.2d 783 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) ; Murray v. State, 922 So.2d 971 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) ; Johnson v. State, 919 So.2d 1233 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) ; Williams v. State, 920 So.2d 590 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) ; Browning v. State, 901 So.2d 757 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) ; King v. State, 902 So.2d 736 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) ; Toliver v. State, 881 So.2d 1070 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) ; Reeves v. State, 874 So.2d 1167 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002) ; Bailey v. State, 848 So.2d 274 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002) ; and Moore v. State, 814 So.2d 308 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) (all reversing the summary dismissal of a Rule 32 petition and ordering the circuit court to grant the petitioner relief where the record clearly established that the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought)."

Based on the foregoing, we reverse the circuit court's judgment insofar as it relates to the denial of relief regarding McBurnett's request to withdraw his guilty pleas to the sexual offenses. The cause is thus remanded with directions to provide McBurnett an opportunity to withdraw his pleas of guilty to the sexual offenses, if he so desires. If McBurnett chooses to withdraw his pleas, "the charges against the defendant as they existed before any amendment, reduction, or dismissal made as part of a plea ... shall be reinstated automatically." Rule 14.4(e), Ala. R. Crim. P.

McBurnett's conviction for possession of marijuana is unaffected by this decision, and is, thus, affirmed.

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

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

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

      In entering the pleas, McBurnett reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.

      The case-action-summary sheet reflects that McBurnett paid the filing fee.

      Counsel for McBurnett drafted and filed the original and first amended petitions. McBurnett drafted and filed the second and third amendments.

      At the time § 15-22-27.3 became effective, October 1, 2005, it stated: "Any person convicted of a criminal sex offense involving a child as defined in subdivision (5) of Section 15-20-21 which constitutes a Class A or B felony shall not be eligible for parole." In October 2005, § 15-20-21(5), Ala. Code 1975, contained the following definition: "(5) CRIMINAL SEX OFFENSE INVOLVING A CHILD. A conviction for any criminal sex offense in which the victim was a child under the age of 12 and any offense involving child pornography." In July 2011 §§ 15-20-20 through 15-20-38, Ala. Code 1975, were repealed and replaced with §§ 15-20A-1 through 15-20A-48.

      The following is disclosed in the record on direct appeal. The victim reported McBurnett's crimes when she was 9 years old and shortly thereafter, on November 7, 2007, she was interviewed by authorities. The victim stated that McBurnett's sexual offenses occurred on more than one occasion and had been ongoing for more than a year and a half. Therefore, McBurnett's sexual offenses did occur after the October 1, 2005, enactment of § 15-22-27.3, Ala. Code 1975. Additionally, the case-action-summary sheets on direct appeal reflect that the crimes against the victim were ongoing between October 1, 2005, and February 2006.

      Use of the word "with" was clearly a typographical error. Moreover, McBurnett submitted the same affidavit with his motion to alter and amend the judgment, and there he penciled the word "out" to the end of "with" to thus state "without." (C. 117.)

      A matter within the Board of Pardons and Paroles' discretion.

      "Ineligibility for parole under § 15-22-27.3 when the maximum sentence a defendant could receive is a term of years will not have the effect of increasing that maximum sentence, as is the case when the maximum sentence a defendant could receive is life imprisonment." McCary v. State, 93 So.3d at 1007.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: JOINER, Judge. WINDOM, Presiding Judge, dissenting.

license: Public Domain

text:
    John TAYLOR v. STATE of Alabama
    CR-17-0103
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    June 1, 2018
    On Return to Remand

      Note from the reporter of decisions: On March 5, 2018, the Court of Criminal Appeals issued an order remanding this case to the trial court, with instructions.

   JOINER, Judge.

John Taylor appeals the October 2017 revocation of his probation. On May 5, 2012, Taylor was convicted of first-degree sexual abuse, see § 13A-6-66, Ala. Code 1975, and was sentenced to serve 10 years' imprisonment; that sentence was split and Taylor was ordered to serve 1 year and 1 day followed by 3 years' supervised probation. Taylor was alleged to be delinquent in his probation for violating the residency requirements of the Alabama Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, § 15-20A-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975 ("SORNA"), see § 15-20A-11, Ala. Code 1975.

Facts and Procedural History

On April 23, 2015, Taylor's probation officer, Kyle Callaghan, filed a delinquency report recommending the revocation of Taylor's probation. The delinquency report alleged:

"On April 19, 2015, Mobile County Sheriff's Office, Sgt. Daniel Webster received an anonymous phone call advising him that Taylor was intoxicated and was making sexual advances to a 14 year old female that was at the residence Taylor's [sic] was temporarily staying. The informant was making a phone call to Sgt. Webster on behalf of the victim's mother, who resided next door. Sgt. Webster responded to the resident [sic] and placed Taylor under arrest for violation of the Alabama Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, Alabama Code 15-20A-11, Residency Restrictions. Taylor was transported to the Mobile County Metro Jail where [he] sits at this time."

(Record on Return to Remand, C. 11-12.)

On September 27, 2017, Taylor appeared with counsel at a probation-revocation hearing. At that hearing, Taylor's counsel admitted that Taylor had violated his probation and that Taylor had pleaded guilty to the SORNA violation. Taylor's counsel noted that Taylor was arrested in April 2015 and stated: "[W]e're just asking for mercy on that being it's two years old and he has [already completed] the full sentence ... on the new charge that's the basis of the revocation." (Record on Return to Remand, R. 4.) The State requested that Taylor's probation be revoked because Taylor had pleaded guilty to the SORNA charge. The circuit court sua sponte continued Taylor's hearing because Taylor's defense counsel had been appointed on the day of the hearing, because the State could not explain why the revocation hearing had not been scheduled until more than two years after the violation had occurred, and because the amount of time remaining on Taylor's term of probation was unknown.

On October 11, 2017, Taylor appeared with counsel for the continued probation-revocation hearing. The State and Taylor stipulated to continuing Taylor's probation for an additional year. The following discussion occurred:

"THE COURT: I'm going to-here's-I'm going to explain why because it needs to be said. SORNA violations where you're just not doing what I have instructed you to do and what the law requires you to is one thing, meaning you don't report to the sheriff's office or on your birthday or whatever they have you do. The new case is alleging that you got intoxicated and then were making sexual advances to a 14-year-old and-
"THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, if I may ask, the report that's being read here was something I pled not guilty to. That would be another charge, Your Honor. That would be a sexual harassment. What I'm pleading out to, Your Honor, the detective authorized me to be there for a week because I had a heart attack. During that week, he came and arrested me for being there because there was allegedly an 11-year-old child staying there. Now, I had made prearrangement for the child to stay with her-and her grandfather to stay at another residence during that week. And that was the situation, Your Honor. This report he is reading was something that was thrown out of court for me to plead guilty to the SORNA.
"THE COURT: All right. Don't interrupt me again.
"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: This original case started by sexual-submitting another person to sexual contact by forcible compulsion and a child less than 12 years of age. It is alleged that you had contact as an intoxicated person making sexual advances to a 14-year-old, plus you got the SORNA charge, plus you pled guilty to it. So I'm revoking your probation in full and ordering you to serve the original 10 years minus any time you've been held on this case or any split sentence that you were originally given."

(R. 7-8.)

Following the hearing, the circuit court issued the following written order:

"This matter having been set for hearing on probation revocation of the 11th day of October 2017, and defendant having appeared with appointed counsel, Patrick Prendergast, and denying the allegations of the probation revocation, and upon testimony presented, it is therefore the finding of this Court that the defendant received new charges, which is a violation of the conditions of the Defendant's probation. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant's probation is due to be and is hereby revoked and defendant is committed to the custody of the Director of the Alabama Department of Corrections to serve the balance of his original 10-year sentence...."

(C. 8.)

Discussion

On appeal, Taylor contends that the circuit court erred when it revoked his probation because, he says, an adequate revocation hearing was not actually held, and he did not affirmatively waive his right to a hearing. We agree.

" ' "Absent a clear abuse of discretion, a reviewing court will not disturb a trial court's conclusions in a probation-revocation proceeding, including the determination whether to revoke, modify, or continue the probation. A trial court abuses its discretion only when its decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law or where the record contains no evidence on which it rationally could have based its decision." '
" McCain v. State, 33 So.3d 642, 647 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). (quoting Holden v. State, 820 So.2d 158, 160 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) (citations omitted) ). However, we review de novo cases that involve only issues of law and the application of the law to the undisputed facts. See Ex parte Walker, 928 So.2d 259, 262 (Ala. 2005) ('[This] case involves only issues of law and the application of the law to the undisputed facts. Thus, our review is de novo.').
" ' "The general rules of preservation apply to probation revocation hearings. Puckett v. State, 680 So.2d 980, 983 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996), citing Taylor v. State, 600 So.2d 1080, 1081 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992). This Court "has recognized, in probation revocation proceedings, only two exceptions to the general rule that issues not presented to the trial court are waived on appeal: (1) the requirement that there be an adequate written order of revocation ..., and (2) the requirement that a revocation hearing actually be held." Puckett, 680 So.2d at 983.' "
" ' Bauer v. State, 891 So.2d 1004, 1006 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) (quoting Owens v. State, 728 So.2d 673, 680 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998) ). This court has also recognized a third exception that a defendant can raise for the first time on appeal-the requirement that the court advise the defendant of his or her right to request an attorney to represent the defendant during probation-revocation proceedings. See Law v. State, 778 So.2d 249, 250 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). A fourth exception to the preservation rule recently announced by our Supreme Court also allows a defendant to raise for the first time on appeal the allegation that the circuit court erred in failing to appoint counsel to represent the defendant during probation-revocation proceedings. See Dean v. State, 57 So.3d 169 (Ala. 2010).'
" Saffold v. State, 77 So.3d 178, 179 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011)."

Powell v. State, 140 So.3d 487, 489-90 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). Thus, although Taylor did not challenge the adequacy of his probation-revocation hearing before the circuit court, this claim may be properly raised for the first time on appeal.

Taylor asserts that "no testimony was taken, no witnesses appeared, and no exhibits were entered into evidence-no hearing took place" before the circuit court revoked his probation. (Taylor's brief, p. 9.)

"In Hollins v. State, 737 So.2d 1056, 1057 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998), this Court held:
" 'Section 15-22-54, Ala. Code 1975, requires a hearing as a prerequisite to the revocation of probation. This statutory requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. Story v. State, 572 So.2d 510 (Ala. Cr. App. 1990). Additionally, the appellant was denied his constitutional right to due process by the revocation of his probation without a hearing. The minimal due process to be accorded a probationer before his probation can be revoked includes written notice of the claimed violations of probation, disclosure to the probationer of the evidence against him, an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence, the right to confront and to cross-examine adverse witnesses, a neutral and detached hearing body such as a traditional parole board, and a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation. Rule 27.5 and 27.6, Ala. R. Crim. P. See Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975) ; Hernandez v. State, 673 So.2d 477 (Ala. Cr. App. 1995).'
"....
" ' "A hearing ordinarily is defined, in matters not associated with full trials, as a proceeding in which the parties are afforded an opportunity to adduce proof and to argue (in person or by counsel) as to the inferences flowing from the evidence." Fiorella v. State, 40 Ala. App. 587, 590, 121 So.2d 875, 878 (1960).' Ex parte Anderson, 999 So.2d 575, 578 (Ala. 2008).
"In D.L.B. v. State, 941 So.2d 324 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006), this Court addressed a similar issue in which the defendant argued that he had not received a probation-revocation hearing. In D.L.B., the defendant, while on probation, was arrested on new criminal charges. The circuit court conducted a brief hearing at which it heard arguments from both defense counsel and the prosecutor. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court revoked the defendant's probation based on the argument presented by the State. 941 So.2d at 325. The defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erroneously revoked his probation without first conducting a probation-revocation hearing that complied with § 15-22-54, Ala. Code 1975. This Court agreed and reversed the judgment of the circuit court, holding:
" 'Although the July 13, 2005, hearing purported to be a probation-revocation hearing, the court announced that it was revoking D.L.B.'s probation without hearing testimony from any State's witnesses and without allowing D.L.B. an opportunity to be heard. Because the circuit court revoked D.L.B.'s probation based on the representations of the prosecutor, rather than on evidence presented to the court in the form of witness testimony or other legal evidence, D.L.B. was denied the right to a hearing where he could be heard and present witnesses and documentary evidence and where he could confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.'
" D.L.B., 941 So.2d at 326.
"In Saffold v. State, 77 So.3d 178 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011), this Court again addressed whether the circuit court had conducted a probation-revocation hearing. In Saffold, the circuit court conducted a brief hearing at which the defendant spoke on his own behalf and the circuit court considered arguments by both defense counsel and the prosecutor. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court prevented the defendant from speaking any further on his own behalf and ordered an officer in the courtroom to place the defendant 'in the box.' Saffold, 77 So.3d at 181. Relying on our rationale in D.L.B., this Court held:
" 'In the instant case, as in D.L.B., we cannot say that the proceeding held on October 28, 2010, constituted a probation-revocation hearing. The prosecutor represented that Saffold had been arrested on new charges but called no witnesses to testify and presented no other evidence regarding the new charges against Saffold. Saffold was not afforded an opportunity to confront and to cross-examine adverse witnesses after he denied committing the new offenses because the State presented none. Although, unlike the defendant in D.L.B., Saffold was in fact afforded an opportunity to be heard, we question whether Saffold was fully afforded an opportunity to adduce proof by way of witness testimony and documentary evidence that he did not commit the new charges and had not violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The transcript of the proceedings indicates that Saffold's opportunity to be heard was cut short when the circuit court interrupted him and ordered an officer in the court to "put [Saffold] in the box." The record indicates that the proceedings ended at that point. Therefore, we must conclude that Saffold was denied his right to a probation-revocation hearing.'
" Saffold, 77 So.3d at 182."

Singleton v. State, 114 So.3d 868, 870-72 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012).

With respect to the instant case, the transcripts of both hearings show that the State presented no witnesses, nor did it introduce any other legal evidence. Although Taylor's counsel and the prosecutor spoke to the court, " '[s]tatements of counsel to the court are not evidence.' " DeBruce v. State, 651 So.2d 599, 608 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) (quoting Evans v. State, 341 So.2d 749, 750 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976) ). Although Taylor was not given an opportunity to address the court, he nonetheless attempted to speak on his behalf before the circuit judge instructed Taylor not to interrupt him again. The circuit court then revoked Taylor's probation, and the proceedings ended. Accordingly, we cannot say that the proceedings conducted on September 27, 2017, and October 11, 2017, constituted an adequate probation-revocation hearing.

The State argues that Taylor admitted to the charge against him and, citing Wagner v. State, 197 So.3d 517 (Ala. 2015), argues further that Taylor received a hearing that substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 27.6(c), Ala. R. Crim. P. We cannot say, however, that the circuit court substantially complied with Rule 27.6(c), Ala. R. Crim. P., or, therefore, that it properly accepted Taylor's admission of guilt. Thus, Wagner is distinguishable.

Rule 27.6(c) provides, in relevant part:

"(c) ADMISSIONS BY THE PROBATIONER. Before accepting an admission by a probationer that the probationer has violated a condition or regulation of probation or an instruction issued by the probation officer, the court shall address the probationer personally and shall determine that the probationer understands the following:
"(1) The nature of the violation to which an admission is offered;
"(2) The right under section (b) to be represented by counsel;
"(3) The right to testify and present witnesses and other evidence on probationer's own behalf and to cross-examine adverse witnesses under subsection (d)(1) ....,
"....
"The court shall also determine that the probationer waives these rights, that the admission is voluntary and not the result of force, threats, coercion, or promises, and that there is a factual basis for the admission."

The transcripts of both hearings show that Taylor's defense counsel-not Taylor himself-admitted that Taylor had pleaded guilty to the SORNA charge. The transcripts do not show that the circuit court ever addressed Taylor personally during either hearing with respect to the provisions of Rule 27.6(c), Ala. R. Crim. P. The only time Taylor ever spoke directly to the court in his behalf was when he interrupted the court to argue that the charge to which he supposedly pleaded guilty and was the basis of his revocation was not the same charge to which he had pleaded guilty. See (R. 7) ("Your Honor, if I may ask, the report that's being read here was something I pled not guilty to. That would be another charge, Your Honor."). Therefore, it does not appear that Taylor was sufficiently apprised of the nature of the violation for which his admission was offered. In addition, the record does not show that the circuit court informed Taylor of his right to testify, to present witnesses on his behalf, and to cross-examine adverse witnesses. The record also fails to show that the court determined that Taylor waived those rights or that his admission-which, we stress again, came only from Taylor's counsel and not Taylor-was voluntary and not the result of force, threats, coercion, or promises. We also note that the circuit court's written order of revocation states that Taylor denied the allegations against him, therefore supporting the conclusion that Taylor did not admit to violating his probation in this instance.

Accordingly, we cannot say that the circuit court complied with the requirements of Rule 27.6(c), Ala. R. Crim. P., or, therefore, that any admissions made by Taylor were properly accepted by the circuit court as a basis for the revocation of Taylor's probation.

Conclusion

The record supports Taylor's contention that the circuit court failed to conduct an adequate probation-revocation hearing. Accordingly, we reverse the order revoking Taylor's probation and remand this matter for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Burke, J., concurs. Welch and Kellum, JJ., concur in the result. Windom, P.J., dissents, with opinion.

WINDOM, Presiding Judge, dissenting.

I believe that the majority's decision conflicts with the Supreme Court of Alabama's opinion in Wagner v. State, 197 So.3d 517, 519 (Ala. 2015). For that reason, I respectfully dissent.

      On March 5, 2018, we remanded this matter for the circuit court to supplement the record with any documents that affirmatively show the offense with which Taylor was charged, as well as the transcript of the hearing at which Taylor allegedly admitted to the new charge against him. In response, the circuit court complied with our instructions and submitted the delinquency report filed against Taylor and a transcript of the September 27, 2017, hearing.


text:
    FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE: A.P.H.
    CASE NO.: SC19-242
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    FEBRUARY 18, 2019
    Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation filed by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, it is ordered that the Board's recommendation is approved by the Court and A.P.H. shall be admitted to The Florida Bar subject to the following conditions:
    1. The applicant's license to practice law shall be placed on probation for a period of five years.
   2. During the period of probation, the applicant shall:

(a) abstain from the consumption of alcoholic beverages;
(b) abstain from the use of controlled substances except as prescribed by a duly licensed medical physician and approved by Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.;
(c) participate actively in the program offered by Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc. during the entire probationary period by complying with the rehabilitation contract with that organization executed on December 23, 2017, and by extending the contract to cover the entire period of probation if necessary;
(d) participate actively in Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous by attending, at least, weekly meetings or such greater frequency as required by Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.; practice AA/NA principles in all of his affairs and carry the AA/NA message to other substance dependent individuals;
(e) attend attorney support meetings at least monthly, or at such greater frequency as required by Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.;
(f) submit to and pay for a minimum of eight (8) random urine drug/alcohol screens annually, as well as any other hair, blood, sweat, or substance screening tests determined to be appropriate by Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.; and
(g) submit quarterly sworn statements to The Florida Bar by March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31 during the probationary period attesting to his compliance with the conditions set forth in 2 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) above.

3. The Florida Bar shall monitor the conditions set forth in the Consent Agreement pursuant to Rule 1-3.2(b) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, and the costs thereof shall be paid by the applicant to The Florida Bar or its designated monitoring agency.

4. To monitor effectively the provisions in this agreement, the applicant shall reside within the State of Florida during the entire period of probation. Any business or pleasure trips outside Florida that exceed ten days shall occur only with the advance approval of The Florida Bar. If the applicant relocates outside the State of Florida during the probationary period for any reason, the applicant shall surrender his license to practice law in Florida and if the applicant fails to do so, the Supreme Court of Florida shall terminate his license.

5. The applicant shall immediately inform The Florida Bar of any criminal arrest or prosecution and the filing of any grievance or complaint related to the applicant's practice of law.

6. If the applicant's license is surrendered or terminated during the probationary period, the applicant shall resume the practice of law in the State of Florida only upon full compliance with the rules and regulations governing admission to The Florida Bar.

7. A failure to observe the conditions of the probation or a finding of probable cause as to conduct of the applicant committed during the period of probation may terminate the probation and subject the applicant to all available grievance procedures and disciplinary sanctions including disbarment under the Rules of Discipline. Upon receiving notice of a violation of the Court's order of conditional admission, The Florida Bar may immediately petition the Court for an order of suspension. The applicant shall have ten days to file a response. If no response is timely filed by the applicant, then the Court shall issue an order suspending the applicant. If a response is filed, the matter shall be disposed of as the Court directs. Unless terminated by the Court, an order of suspension shall remain in effect until final disposition of the grievance procedures commenced by The Florida Bar against the applicant.

8. If circumstances so warrant it, the applicant and The Florida Bar may stipulate to an extension of the period of probation or The Florida Bar may petition the Court for such an extension with a final decision to be made by the Court.

9. By executing this Agreement, the applicant acknowledges that an uninterrupted period of documented sobriety for a minimum period of time must be established prior to admission to The Florida Bar on an unconditional basis. Should the period of probation be extended pursuant to either paragraph 7 or 8 above, the applicant, therefore, further agrees that such extension shall be for a minimum of three up to five years.

10. By executing this Agreement, the applicant specifically consents to and authorizes the release of any and all materials in the applicant's file to The Florida Bar that the Bar may request from the Board to enable the Bar to fulfill its responsibilities under this Consent Agreement.

A True Copy

Test:

John A. Tomasino

Clerk, Supreme Court


text:
    Howard J. JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4311
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 25, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Asa M. STEWART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4079
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 16, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Nicholas MALLIS, Appellant, v. PALERMO AT THE COLONY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. and Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-798
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 16, 2019 Rehearing Denied February 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Norman David FREEMAN, Appellant, v. Cyril C. DESILVA, Bay Medical Center, S. Chapman, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-1588
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 3, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Anthony D. MCBRIDE, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3205
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Betty Caitlin Nicole SMITH, Appellant, v. Zachary Taylor DANIEL, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3222
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 8, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Henry MILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2821
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    February 5, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Terrance SHAW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-5027
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 28, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   DISMISSED.


text:
    James Clifford ROBERTS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-258
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Darrick L. MCFADDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4263
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Douglas W. LEWIS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3061
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Burke SILAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-3625
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Donald Edward BROOKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2911
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Donald Edward BROOKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2905
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Oscar L. FOSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2738
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    William COTMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-861
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Charles STARKEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2715
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jason Scott MAGNES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2696
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kenneth J. O'BRIEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2784
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Heather NEVILLE, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-2821
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Andre COOK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-0906
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kelvin L. JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2354
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Shaketa JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2226
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    STEPHANIE ROBERTSON NATIONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1543
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Trey L. ODOL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1745
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Antonio RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1627
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Joseph L. SHORT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1185
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Lamont ASBERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1003
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joseph A. COOK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-0982
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Thomas E. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-728
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Nathan KINARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-570
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lawrence Aubry KELLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-532
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jeffrey Earl STARK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3136
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ernest Alejandro FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-0801
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Herbert E. CLARK III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-5012
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James L. THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-0080
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Dave JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4960
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Darrell KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-1482
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    Robert Jon CHELICO, Former Husband, Appellant, v. Kristie Kay CHELICO, Former Wife, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-1054
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 7, 2019
    Craig A. Vigodsky, Pensacola, for Appellant.
    Ross A. Keene of Ross Keene Law, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Roberts, Ray, and Winsor, JJ., concur.


text:
    Patrice KERR, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D19-0181
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    John Albert SUMMERLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3069
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Terrence Derome DANIELS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2713
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Andre SHEFFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2668
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tony E. DENSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2443
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jordan THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4116
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Curtis L. CAIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4114
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 11, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael TRAMEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2427
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Levert STEWART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2380
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Richard ELDER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D18-2884
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Lynda Lorraine ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2219
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Geronimo Becerra ALVAREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1321
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Michael S. WINTERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-0063
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    DESTIN POINTE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, Petitioner, v. DESTIN PARCEL 160, LLC, Destin Guardian Corporation, Destin Pointe Holdings, Inc., and Destin Parcel B, LLC, Respondents.
    No. 1D18-1533
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    The GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM and the Florida Department of Children and Families, Appellants, v. S.G. and E.G., Appellees.
    No. 1D18-5003
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jerri NEEMAN, Former Wife, Appellant, v. Scott NEEMAN, Former Husband, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-0546
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lucy DASHER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D18-4490
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Eric Miguel MONCADA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-5126
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Keith Bouvier JONES, II, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2315
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Richard A. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3089
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kenneth RUDOLPH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-2946
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert Edward GODERSKI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-3421
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Maite BENITEZ-ORDOVAS, Appellant, v. ALSCO, INC., and Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-3096
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.D., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2962
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Zachary LAMBERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-405
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Elmo HENDRICKS and Tynisha Watkins, Appellants, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-219
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Timothy Lavon RANDOLPH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4385
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 14, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Johanna BEANBLOSSOM, Appellant, v. The SCHOOL BOARD OF BAY COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-1827
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 14, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James Lee KEENE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4996
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed October 3, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Howard Lee HAMILTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2190
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed December 12, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Isaac BARROSO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1394
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed December 7, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jeffrey CASTLEBERRY, DOC# 475665, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4652
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed October 26, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Bassam MINAWI, Appellant, v. G. Andrew GRACY, as personal representative of the Estate of Anwar Minawi, deceased, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4255
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed October 19, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Theresa A. JONES, Appellant, v. Addie BURKS, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-685
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed December 19, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Colette MARQUIS, a/k/a Colette Ann Marquis, a/k/a Colette Marquis-Kiliany, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR LONG BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-WL3, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-5327
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed December 14, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    William J. BRYAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2445
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed December 12, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Eddie CARGILE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2433
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed December 12, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Reynaldo REYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-631
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed December 21, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Martin P. MARTINEZ, Doc #H41903, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2683
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed December 21, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    John Kyle SAFRON, DOC #Y33072, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4984
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed December 21, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Channing JAMES, DOC #S12872, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-5156
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed December 21, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sara Kathleen BLACKWELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Simon Alejandro SIEGERT, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0753
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 06, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Eric JOHNSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0397
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 25, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Samuel LINE, DOC #C09033, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1068
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed December 21, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Juan Carlos CRUZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4130
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed December 21, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Danny Brett BECKNER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0634
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 25, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Billy DAVIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0548
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 25, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Jose Dolores RAMIREZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0274
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 25, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Douglas A. JENNINGS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0297
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 25, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Thomas J. DOHERTY, et. al, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Carolyn REDLIN, et. al, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2747
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Eddie RIVERA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3030
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    R.S., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0559
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Isiah HARVEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0200
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 25, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Christina A. WINSEY-HERMAN, et al, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, et al, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4625
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Aaron C. PORTER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0333
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    D'Angelo Lavelle DIXON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0450
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Aaron C. PORTER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0472
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Jacki JOHNSON, Hardee County Tax Collector, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. RAPID SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2067
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Keith WILLETT, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4342
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Ouida SANDERS, et al, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. MANOR CARE-CARROLLWOOD OF TAMPA FL, LLC, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0731
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    James S. DUNCAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.:2D19-0112
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 05, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Writ of prohibition is denied.


text:
    Darrel TOLLIVER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4166
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Mark GORMAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Irina TULIANO, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3330
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Kahlil A. CRUDER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0320
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mandamus is denied.


text:
    Demetrius Dwayne BROOKINS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2589
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 05, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Writ of habeas corpus is denied.


text:
    Paul D. BROWN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Dave ANDERSON, et al, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-0853
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    R.S., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4370
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Marcus HENDERSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0620
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 25, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Randall C. PLACE, Esq., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Sara Elizabeth HANLEY, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0157
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Robert M. LOBER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0012
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 18, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    G T B INVESTMENTS, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. GULF TO BAY DEVELOPERS DIVERSIFIED, LLC, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D12-5011
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    M. Allam REHEEM, M.D., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Paul BARSA as Executor of the Estate of John E. Barsa, M.D., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3264
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Romerio Latee WALKER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0660
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 19, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Migdalia GARCIA-CARRASQUILLO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Flamur XHUDO, et al, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0734
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 26, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Pedro GONZALEZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0361
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 25, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    George T. DRAYTON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0353
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    February 25, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Daniel C. HOWARD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4372
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    November 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Beth DALTON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Chad CHRONISTER, Sheriff of Hillsborough County, Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3310
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Danny Ray HORNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1498
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Matthew Eric REID, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2535
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 4, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Darrell Jerome BURNSIDE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2609
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 4, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    In the INTEREST OF I.N., a Child.
    K.O., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.
    Case No. 2D18-2021
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 9, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Roderick MULLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2565
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 4, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Terry COLLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2635
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 4, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Frederick HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2648
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Margaret STEWART a/k/a Margaret Rose Stewart, Appellant, v. CIT BANK, N.A. f/k/a OneWest Bank, N.A., Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2120
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Steven Joseph HANDLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1306
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Clarence THORPE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1389
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mark PORTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1065
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Faye S. GRAY a/k/a Faye Stanley Gray and James Gray, Jr., Appellants, v. YOUDALI INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company f/k/a Ford Motor Credit Company, a Corporation; United States of America, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; Copper Ridge Point Homeowners Association, Inc., a Florida Not-for-Profit Corporation; James Gray, III; and Jason Gray, Appellees.
    Case No. 2D18-1513
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Richard NOBLES, DOC #H35384, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1442
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mark Allen TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-3390
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    IN the INTEREST OF C.B., a Child.
    M.B., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian ad litem Program, Appellees.
    Case No. 2D18-3874
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    BOVE GRAND, INC., d/b/a Westshore Pizza Village Center, Appellant, v. Angeline DIAMOND, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4955
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jennifer JOHNSON, Appellant, v. CASA DEL MAR CONDOMINIUM, Association No. 3 of St. Petersburg Florida, Inc., Appellee.
    Jennifer Johnson, Appellant, v. Casa Del Mar Condominium, Association No. 3 of St. Petersburg Florida, Inc., Duane Fox, Howard Asbrand, Nancy Asbrand, Guido Sartor, John Peck, Jerry Peterson, Renee Huber, William Mottley, and Php Management Services, LLC, d/b/a Condominium Associates, Appellees.
    Case No. 2D17-1402 Case Nos. 2D17-4046 CONSOLIDATED
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    George RADA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1465
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Charles Ray GORDON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3145
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Edward R. NIELSEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3176
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 20, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mark E. COOK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2952
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tyler BIGHAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-3993
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Benjamin G. PARRISH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3094
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Shaun V. MACLAUCHLAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3118
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Servando GREGORIO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3182
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 20, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Alicia TONDREAU-LEVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-4190
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kem MINER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-5132
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Timothy GAUNT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1386
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jeramey Wayne WESTERVELT, DOC #H50268, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1528
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Trevontae J. SHULER, DOC #H37202, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-2065
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Nancy Jo GRANT, Appellant, v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-2698
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jarrett Michael SMITH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    Case No. 2D18-3352
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Rafael Iglesias CASTELLANOS, a/k/a Rafael an Iglesias Castellanos, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-2059
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Abraham SIMMONS, Jr., DOC #109310, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-2527
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Marquise HAYNES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-3010
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Deangela B. WILLIAMS and Koresha J. Williams, Appellants, v. POLK STATE COLLEGE, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3033
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Carlos Ruben RIVAS, DOC #523283, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1870
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Edric BENNETT, DOC #563736, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-760
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ronald G. NAGY, Appellant, v. Gordon LOWNDS, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2225
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    George FONSECA, Appellant, v. Kevin CAREY, as Administrator of Micky G. Rigby, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2342
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mark P. HAYE, Appellant, v. Stephanie M. WELDON, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2947
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND SUPPORT FUND, a/k/a Community Charity Advancement, Inc., and the Fundraising Center, Petitioners, v. Matthew D. WEIDNER, Respondent.
    Case No. 2D18-3121
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    KOZMA INVESTIMENTOS, LTDA, Appellant, v. Edson Pereira DUDA and Natalina Sacchi Duda, Appellees.
    Case No. 2D18-602
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael BROOKS, a/k/a Michael Brian Brooks, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1748
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kari FAMBRO, Appellant, v. Deborah FAMBRO and John Dickson, Appellees.
    Case No. 2D18-1855
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 22, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    RIVER OAKS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. a/k/a River Oaks II Condo Assn., Inc. a Domestic Corporation, Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2540
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Pedro OTERO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1194
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael Preston HARRISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1558
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Artis SCARBOROUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-5080
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Edward G. WINN, DOC #S28549, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1618
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    BONAFIDE PROPERTIES, LLC, as Trustee Only, Under the 2600 SE Ocean Blvd Unit P-12 Land Trust, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS Indenture TRUSTEE FOR HOMEBANC MORTGAGE TRUST 2005-5, MORTGAGE BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2005-5; Teresa A. Mueller; Unknown Spouse of Teresa A. Mueller; Ivy Lake Estates Association, Inc.; Suncoast Crossings Master Association, Inc.; and Unknown Person(s) in Possession of the Subject Property, Appellees.
    Case No. 2D18-1703
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Brittany CHOQUETTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2598
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kunta Kinte PORTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-329
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kevin Antonio HERNANDEZ, DOC #C07261, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-534
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Matthew Tyrone SIMMONS, DOC #Y56160, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1053
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jeffrey A. KEOWIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1885
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kevin Jerome PARKER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-2893
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Delourdes LALANNE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-3888
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Holly BRASS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4171
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    GATEWAY RADIOLOGY CONSULTANTS, P.A., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. PHILIPS MEDICAL CAPITAL, LLC, a, Foreign Limited Liability Company, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-787
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Innocent GEDEHOMME, DOC #S34447, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1266
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Susan ROMANOK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2717
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Craig CALHOUN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-363
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    George Z. BENIAMINOV and Argman Group, Appellants, v. Natalyz KUZINA, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1815
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 14, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    COASTAL VENTURE ALLIANCE, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Appellant, v. Jose L. RUBIO, Individually; Anthony Rubio, Individually, and DOES 1-5, Inclusive, Appellees.
    No. 4D18-2051
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 14, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    John J. CHAMBERLAIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1933
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 31, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Roderick Deshun WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-839
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed January 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Catherine D. Galloway BENITEZ a/k/a Catherine Benitez and Michael Benitez, Appellants, v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NA, Successor to the Bank of New York Trust Company, NA, as Trustee, for the Chase Mortgage Finance Corporation Multi-Class Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-86, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1106
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 21, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Raymond Michael MATTSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1024
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 21, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tobias MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1202
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 21, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.B., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1426
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 21, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James Riley DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1639
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    February 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher STEWART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-2785
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 21, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    T.S., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1761
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 21, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Leroy BEVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1269
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 28, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    D.S., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1244
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    February 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Aurenthiel Gene YOUNGBLOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1944
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 21, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Felix PERNETT, Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. and TWU Local 568 Miami, Florida, Appellees.
    No. 4D18-1696
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 21, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Daniel Raymond SMITH, Appellant, v. Dale Ann SMITH, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1912
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [March 7, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Richard BLUMBERG and Estelle Blumberg, Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS Indenture TRUSTEE FOR MSCC HELOC TRUST 2007-1, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-2253
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [March 7, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    William Henry THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1928
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [February 28, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    VBX, INC., Appellant, v. SKY FLY UNIVERSAL, INC., Cool & Start Aviation, Inc., Andrea Rojas a/k/a Maria Andrea Rojas, Sandra Rojas and David Rojas, Appellees.
    No. 4D18-2073
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    February 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    BOYES, FARINA & MATWICZYK, P.A., Appellant, v. Glenn SANDS and Sun Holdings Capital, LLC, Appellees.
    No. 4D18-2741
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [March 7, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rizwan AHMED, as Assignee of Rehan Naseer, et al., Appellants, v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY and United General Title Insurance Company, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-1248
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 5, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Trellis L. LANIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-2865
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    January 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Richard Francis CURTIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2469
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed March 12, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Maurice BARNETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1450
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 26, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.