source: Caselaw Access Project

author: KELLUM, Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Ashley Parkins PRUITT v. STATE of Alabama
    CR-16-0956
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    April 27, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 29, 2018 Certiorari Denied September 14, 2018
    Alabama Supreme Court 1170956
    Brett Ashley King, Locust Fork, for appellant.
    Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and Laura I. Cuthbert, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
   KELLUM, Judge.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the appellant, Ashley Parkins Pruitt, a school employee, pleaded guilty to two counts of engaging in a sex act or deviant sexual intercourse with a student under the age of 19 years, a violation of § 13A-6-81, Ala. Code 1975, and two counts of distribution of obscene material to a minor, a violation of § 13A-12-200.5, Ala. Code 1975. The circuit court sentenced Pruitt to 15 years' imprisonment for each conviction for engaging in a sex act or deviant sexual intercourse with a student under the age of 19 years; those sentences were split, and Pruitt was ordered to serve 1 year in jail and 2 years on house arrest followed by 3 years' supervised probation. For her convictions for distributing obscene material to a minor, the circuit court sentenced Pruitt to one year in jail; those sentences were split and Pruitt was ordered to serve six months in jail followed by three years' supervised probation. The court ordered that all four sentences were to run concurrently. The court further ordered Pruitt to pay $2,500 in fines, $250 to the crime victims compensation fund, and court costs.

During the guilty plea, the parties submitted an exhibit to the plea agreement in which they stipulated to the following facts:

"Ashley Pruitt (hereinafter 'AP') was employed with the Blount County Board of Education at various times as a teacher and coach from 2008 to 2015.
"At all times relevant to this case, AP resided in the Locust Fork community.
"AP was hired as a teacher and coach at Locust Fork High School, where she taught during the school years of 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. The school year runs from August through May.
"At all time pertinent to this case, Victim # 1, Victim # 2, and Victim # 3 were between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years old, student athletes, and enrolled as students at Locust Fork High School. All victims were in AP's classes, at some point, at Locust Fork High School during the school years of 2012-13 and/or 2013-14.
"In August 2014, the Blount County Board of Education hired AP to teach and coach at Appalachian High School where she remained employed as a teacher and coach until January 2015.
"Locust Fork High School and Appalachian High School are located in Blount County, Alabama, and are a part of the Blount County School System. Locust Fork High School and Appalachian High School are about 20 miles apart. There are a total of seven high schools in Blount County. Six of those seven high schools are a part of the Blount County School System.
"In October 2014, AP knowingly sent Victim # 1, who was 16 at the time, a nude photograph of her breasts and a nude photograph of her vagina via Snapchat [social-media platform] using an electronic device while in Blount County. Victim # 1 claims the photos did not 'harm' him. As to Victim # 1, the State would assert that harm is determined by the trier of fact based on community standards. Per the statute, the term 'harmful to minors' is defined as
"a. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of minors; and
"b. The material depicts or describes sexual conduct, breast nudity or genital nudity, in a way which is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable to minors; and
"c. A reasonable person would find that the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literacy, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.
"In October 2014, AP engaged in deviant sexual intercourse with Victim # 2, who was 16 at the time, in Blount County, Alabama.
"In September 2014, AP engaged in sexual intercourse with Victim # 3, who was 18 at the time, in Blount County, Alabama.
"All acts between AP and the victims were consensual. However, it is the State's argument that under [§]13A-6-81, [Ala. Code 1975,] consent is not a defense to the crimes charged."

(C. 44-45.)

Before entering her plea, Pruitt filed a motion to dismiss the charges pending against her on the basis that the statutes under which she pleaded guilty were unconstitutional as applied to her. At the time she entered her guilty plea, Pruitt filed a renewed motion to dismiss all five counts against her in which she reasserted her constitutional challenge and during her guilty-plea colloquy reserved her challenge to the constitutionality of the statutes. This appeal followed.

I.

Pruitt contends that § 13A-6-81, Ala. Code 1975, is unconstitutional as applied to her. Specifically, Pruitt argues that her felony convictions should be overturned because, she says, the legislature never intended § 13A-6-81, Ala. Code 1975, to apply to teachers and students, 16 and older, who are not at the same school. Pruitt cites the United States Supreme Court's holding in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003), in support of her contention on appeal and contends that "[t]he Lawrence opinion, with Alabama's age of consent being sixteen, should protect Pruitt from prosecution for her sexual activities with Locust Fort students." (Pruitt's brief, pp. 9-13.)

"The interpretation of a statute involves a question of law and an appellate court reviews a trial court's interpretation de novo, without any presumption of correctness. Simcala, Inc. v. American Coal Trade, Inc., 821 So.2d 197 (Ala. 2001). " '[O]n appeal, the ruling on a question of law carries no presumption of correctness, and this Court's review is de novo." Ex parte Graham, 702 So.2d 1215, 1221 (Ala.1997).' Rogers Found. Repair, Inc. v. Powell, 748 So.2d 869, 871 (Ala. 1999)."

Girard v. State, 883 So.2d 717, 719 (Ala. 2003).

"It is well settled that a person challenging the constitutionality of a statute as applied to [her] 'bears the burden of proving that [the statute] is unconstitutional as applied to [her] conduct.' Powell v. State, 72 So.3d 1268, 1278 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). The Texas Court of Appeals has explained:
" 'A statute may be found unconstitutional "as applied" to a specific set of facts or "on its face." See Scott v. State, 322 S.W.3d 662, 665 n. 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) ; Bynum v. State, 767 S.W.2d 769, 773 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Generally, a defendant must show that a statute is unconstitutional "as applied" to the conduct for which he was charged. See id. at 774. A claim that a statute is unconstitutional "as applied" is a claim that the statute operates unconstitutionally with respect to the claimant because of his particular circumstances. Gillenwaters v. State, 205 S.W.3d 534, 536 n. 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).'
" State v. Johnson, 425 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. App. 2014)."

Wesson v. State, 208 So.3d 1160, 1162 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015).

Statutes are presumed to be constitutional. In considering whether a legislative act is unconstitutional, we are guided by the following principles:

" 'This Court " 'should be very reluctant to hold any act unconstitutional.' " Ex parte D.W., 835 So.2d 186, 189 (Ala. 2002) (quoting Ex parte Boyd, 796 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Ala. 2001) ). "[I]n passing upon the constitutionality of a legislative act, the courts uniformly approach the question with every presumption and intendment in favor of its validity, and seek to sustain rather than strike down the enactment of a coordinate branch of the government." Alabama State Fed'n of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1, 9, 18 So.2d 810, 815 (1944) (emphasis added). This is so, because "it is the recognized duty of the court to sustain the act unless it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that it is violative of the fundamental law." 246 Ala. at 9, 18 So.2d at 815 (emphasis added).' "

Vann v. State, 143 So.3d 850, 854-55 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) (quoting McInnish v. Riley, 925 So.2d 174, 178 (Ala. 2005) ). In order to overcome the presumption of constitutionality, the party challenging the constitutionality of an act bears the burden of showing that the act is unconstitutional. State v. Worley, 102 So.3d 435, 449 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).

Pruitt pleaded guilty to violating § 13A-6-81, Ala. Code 1975. At the time of the crime in this case, § 13A-6-81, Ala. Code 1975, provided, in pertinent part:

"(a) A person commits the crime of a school employee engaging in a sex act or deviant sexual intercourse with a student under the age of 19 years if he or she is a school employee and engages in a sex act or deviant sexual intercourse with a student, regardless of whether the student is male or female. Consent is not a defense to a charge under this section."

Pruitt does not dispute that she was a teacher at the time she engaged in a sex act or deviant sexual intercourse with the victims in this case. As a teacher, Pruitt was a school employee. See § 13A-6-80, Ala. Code 1975 ("For purposes of this article, school employee includes a teacher...."). Further, it is undisputed that the victims in this case were students. However, Pruitt argues that regardless of her status as a teacher, the facts of this case, namely, that the student victims were 16 years and older and attended a different school than the school in which Pruitt taught, resulted in the unconstitutional application of § 13A-6-81 in this case. Relying on Lawrence v. Texas, Pruitt argues that she engaged in sexual conduct with consenting parties under Alabama law who were "mature enough to consent to sexual relations." (Pruitt's brief, p. 13.) Pruitt's reliance on Lawrence, however, is unavailing.

In Lawrence, the United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a Texas statute that provided: "A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." Texas Penal Code Ann. § 21.06(a) (2003). The defendants in Lawrence were adult males who were engaged in private, consensual conduct at the time of their arrest. In framing the issue, the Supreme Court noted that it had to determine "whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution." Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 564, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court concluded that the statute as applied to Lawrence violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that it "further[ed] no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual." Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 579, 123 S.Ct. 2472. In so holding, the Supreme Court recognized:

"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution.... The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle."

Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (emphasis added).

In this case, unlike in Lawrence, the statute at issue prohibited a school employee from engaging in a sex act or deviant sexual intercourse with a student under the age of 19 years. The sexual conduct, here, occurred between an adult teacher and three students who were under the age of 19. Specifically, Pruitt engaged in deviant sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old student, engaged in sexual intercourse with a 18-year-old student, and sent a 16-year-old student nude photographs of her breasts and vagina. All the students were minors under Alabama law. See § 26-1-1, Ala. Code 1975 (stating that "[a]ny person in this state, at the arrival at the age of 19 years, shall be relieved of his or her disabilities of minority"). Therefore, contrary to Pruitt's contention otherwise, the holding in Lawrence does not support the prohibition of the prosecution of the sexual crimes in this case on constitutional grounds.

Moreover, there exists a legitimate state interest in prohibiting intimate contact between a teacher and a student. Other jurisdictions have recognized the unique relationship a teacher has with a student. In State v. Edwards, 48 Kan.App.2d 264, 276, 288 P.3d 494, 502 (2012), the Kansas Court of Appeals stated:

"[T]eachers have constant access to students, often in an unsupervised context. Thus, teachers are in a unique position to groom or coerce students into exploitive or abusive conduct. It is uncontestable that the State must provide a safe school environment for students, which includes preventing the sexual exploitation of students. Teachers are vested with a great deal of trust by the school districts, the parents, the public, and the students themselves."

Similarly, the Connecticut Supreme Court noted:

"[S]chool employees 'are given unique access to students, and are thereby vested with great trust and confidence by the school, parents, and public, and [the legislature could have] sought to preserve or strengthen that trust by unequivocally prohibiting school employees from misusing their access to students as a conduit for sex.' Ex parte Morales, [03-05-00489-CR,] 212 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. App. 2006) (Texas statute that prohibited teachers from having sexual intercourse with students rationally related to legitimate government interest). Moreover, the legislature reasonably could have concluded that a sexually charged learning environment likely would confuse, disturb and distract students, thereby undermining the quality of education in the state."

State v. McKenzie-Adams, 281 Conn. 486, 508, 915 A.2d 822, 837 (2007), overruled on other grounds by State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538, 34 A.3d 370 (2012). We agree with the reasoning of these courts and reiterate the importance of maintaining the integrity of the teacher-student relationship.

Likewise, Pruitt's contention that the victims were old enough to consent also fails because § 13A-6-81 expressly states that "consent is not a defense." Pruitt cites § 30-1-4, Ala. Code 1975-the law establishing the minimum age of 16 for contracting for marriage-for the proposition that the State of Alabama "mandated that those sixteen and older are mature enough to choose sexual partners, and establish boundaries to their sexual activities." (Pruitt's brief, p. 9.) We are not persuaded, however, that by enacting § 30-1-4 the legislature intended to make such a sweeping "mandate" as Pruitt suggests. Pruitt's contention that § 30-1-4 permits 16- and 18-year-olds to make decisions about their sexual partners and activities is not supported by the enactment of § 13A-6-81 that went into effect on July 1, 2010, and expressly prohibited consensual sexual contact between a school employee and a student under the age of 19 years.

Finally, the fact that Pruitt engaged in sexual conduct with the student victims after she transferred to teach at a different school does not render § 13A-6-81 unconstitutional under the particular facts and circumstances of this case.

" ' " 'In determining the meaning of a statute, this Court looks to the plain meaning of the words as written by the legislature.' DeKalb County LP Gas Co. v. Suburban Gas, Inc., 729 So.2d 270, 275 (Ala. 1998).
" ' " ' "Words used in a statute must be given their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, and where plain language is used a court is bound to interpret that language to mean exactly what it says. If the language of the statute is unambiguous, then there is no room for judicial construction and the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must be given effect." '
" ' " Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. v. Nielsen, 714 So.2d 293, 296 (Ala. 1998) (quoting IMED Corp. v. Systems Eng'g Assocs. Corp., 602 So.2d 344, 346 (Ala. 1992) )." '
" Sanders v. State, 145 So.3d 92, 95-96 (Ala. 2013) (quoting City of Prattville v. Corley, 892 So.2d 845, 848 (Ala. 2003) ).

Bonds v. State, 205 So.3d 1270, 1273 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015).

Section 13A-6-81, Ala. Code 1975, states, in pertinent part, that "[a] person commits the crime of a school employee engaging in a sex act or deviant sexual intercourse with a student under the age of 19 years if he or she is a school employee and engages in a sex act or deviant sexual intercourse with a student." The language in the statute is unambiguous and, therefore, requires no judicial interpretation on our part. See Ex parte Ankrom, 152 So.3d 397, 404 (Ala. 2013) (recognizing that principles of statutory construction permit an appellate court to engage in judicial construction only if the language in a statute is ambiguous). Section 13A-6-81 prohibits a teacher from engaging in a sex act or deviant sexual intercourse with a minor student. As noted above, it is undisputed that Pruitt was a school employee and that the victims in this case were students under the age of 19 years.

The particular facts of this case exemplify the importance of reading § 13A-6-81 to prohibit sexual contact between teachers and students, regardless of whether the teacher and student are at the same school or different schools. In this case, the stipulated facts indicate that Pruitt taught the victims at Locust Fork High School for at least one year and possibly two years. In August 2014, Pruitt was hired to teach at Appalachian High School-another high school in Blount County. Approximately one month after her transfer to a new high school in the same school system, Pruitt engaged in sexual intercourse with one of the student victims. The very next month, Pruitt engaged in deviant sexual intercourse with another student victim and sent yet another student victim nude photographs of her breasts and vagina. Pruitt waited only a couple of months after she was transferred to a different school before she engaged in sexual conduct with each student victim. At the very least, the timing of her conduct evidences an attempt to circumvent a legitimate state interest that Pruitt concedes on appeal, namely, that the State has "a legitimate interest in criminalizing sexual contact between teachers and students of the same school." (Pruitt's brief, p. 13.) The State's interest in protecting students, however, does not end when the student or teacher transfers to another school, particularly one in the same school system, as in this case.

Accordingly, Pruitt has failed to demonstrate that § 13A-6-81 was unconstitutional as applied to her. Therefore, we affirm as to this issue.

II.

Pruitt also contends that her misdemeanor convictions for distribution of obscene material to a minor should be reversed because, she argues, § 13A-12-200.5, Ala. Code 1975, as applied, infringes on her "Equal Protection Rights under the U.S. Constitution." (Pruitt's brief, p. 14.) Pruitt contends that the State does not have a "legitimate interest in meddling in her private relationship with another consenting person." (Pruitt's brief, p. 14.)

Section 13A-12-200.5, Ala. Code 1975, states, in pertinent part, that "[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or recklessly distribute to a minor ... any material which is harmful to minors."

"In the Alabama Criminal Code alone, the Alabama Legislature has repeatedly recognized that children are entitled to certain protections not afforded adults. See § 13A-3-3 ('The prosecution of any person as an adult shall be barred if the offense was committed when the actor was less than 14 years old.'); § 13A-6-40(1)(b) (defining 'restrain' in connection with kidnapping); § 13A-6-45 (interference with custody); § 13A-6-61(a)(3) (rape in the first degree); § 13A-6-62(a)(1) (rape in the second degree); § 13A-6-63(a)(3) (sodomy in the first degree); § 13A-6-64(a)(1) (sodomy in the second degree); § 13A-6-66(a)(3) (sexual abuse in the first degree); § 13A-6-67(a)(2) (sexual abuse in the second degree); § 13A-6-69 (enticing child to enter vehicle, house, etc., for immoral purposes); § 13A-6-70(c)(1) (providing that a person is deemed incapable of consent to certain sexual offenses if that person is less than 16 years old); § 13A-11-76 (prohibiting the delivery of a pistol to a minor); § 13A-12-111(a)(2) (promoting prostitution in the first degree); § 13A-12-112(a)(2) (promoting prostitution in second degree); § 13A-12-191 (prohibiting the dissemination or public display of obscene matter containing visual reproduction of persons under 17 years of age involved in obscene acts); § 13A-12-192 (prohibiting the possession of obscene matter containing visual reproduction of persons under 17 years of age involved in obscene acts); § 13A-12-196 (prohibiting parents or guardians from permitting children to engage in production of obscene matter); § 13A-12-197 (prohibiting the production of obscene matter depicting persons under 17 years of age involved in obscene acts); § 13A-13-3 (incest); § 13A-13-4 (nonsupport); § 13A-13-5 (abandonment of a child); § 13A-13-6 (endangering the welfare of a child); § 13A-12-200.1(16) (defining the term 'harmful to minors' in connection with Alabama's Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act); § 13A-12-200.5 (prohibiting the distribution of material harmful to minors); § 13A-12-215 (prohibiting the sale, furnishing, etc., of controlled substances by persons over age 18 to persons under age 18); and § 13A-12-250 (providing for an additional penalty for the unlawful sale of a controlled substance on or near school campus)."

Ex parte Woodard, 631 So.2d 1065, 1072-73 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993).

As recognized in Woodward, supra, § 13A-12-200.5 is a statute created to protect the welfare of minor children.

"In equal protection jurisprudence, any law that does not employ a classification based on race, sex, national origin, or legitimacy of birth and does not impinge upon a fundamental right, is subject to the 'rational relationship' analysis. Under this analysis, any law rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective will withstand an equal protection challenge. See generally Lyng v. Castillo, 477 U.S. 635, 106 S.Ct. 2727, 91 L.Ed.2d 527 (1986) ; County Board v. Richards, 434 U.S. 5, 98 S.Ct. 24, 54 L.Ed.2d 4 (1977)."

Ex parte Robertson, 621 So.2d 1289, 1291 (Ala. 1993).

Because the State has a legitimate interest in protecting the welfare of minor children, § 13A-12-200.5 does not violate any equal-protection right. Accordingly, Pruitt is not entitled to relief on this issue.

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

AFFIRMED.

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

      "It is well settled that the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense controls the prosecution." Minnifield v. State, 941 So.2d 1000, 1001 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).


text:
    Chris HUDSON, Appellant, v. Darlene HUDSON, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1557
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    John Claude Jean DESROSIERS II, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3238
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Aaron L. JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2652
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Courtney BENTLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2551
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Yokita Y. JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2278
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Donta A. LONG, Appellant, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3881
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jesse James PHILLIPS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D18-4522
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   DENIED.


text:
    Cheryl Rene DUNMORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3786
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    Tony R. HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3058
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    Tony R. Hill, pro se, Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Rowe, Jay, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.


text:
    Jessica Danielle ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2959
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Erron Markese COLEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2697
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    The CJS SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, d/b/a The HCI Group, Appellant, v. Maxine SIMMONS, an individual, and Global Information Technology Resources, Inc., a California corporation, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-0916
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    Kenneth A. Tomchin of Tomchin & Odom, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.
    David H. Spalter of Jill S. Schwartz & Associates, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellees.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

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


text:
    Derrick Lewis KNOWLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-0505
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Silas GILYARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4423
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Daniel TONEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4204
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Dequan Rahkelle CHARLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3690
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jazmyn Tanae Irene ONEAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3665
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Roy S. JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2273
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    Roy S. Jackson, pro se, Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Tabitha Herrera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Wolf, Kelsey, and Winokur, JJ., concur.


text:
    Michael TIMBERLAKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2077
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Carrie McMullen, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Makar, Osterhaus, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.


text:
    Rickey MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2187
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    M.F., Father of A.O., L.F., and L.F., Minor Children, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4075
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 4, 2019
    Valarie Linnen, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
    Sarah J. Rumph of Children's Legal Services, Tallahassee; Thomasina F. Moore, Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb of the Guardian ad Litem, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Rowe, Jay, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.


text:
    Thomas W. HUSSEY, D.D.S., Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, as public corporate body of the University of Florida, through the College of Medicine, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1262
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joseph Greg COLLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2093
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Lewis, Rowe, and Makar, JJ., concur.


text:
    Erron Markese COLEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2698
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Rowe, Jay, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., Concur.


text:
    David Lee MASON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-3666
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 4, 2019
    Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kevin P. Steiger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Roberts and Winokur, JJ., concur.


text:
    Dennis BOTELLO, Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES and Sedgwick, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-5169
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    L.F., Mother of L.F., L.F. and A.O., Minor Children, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4074
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    E.M.B., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-5101
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    James Noah WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2879
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lynne FREMONT, Appellant, v. BRANDSMART USA and Travelers Insurance Co., Appellees.
    No. 1D18-2283
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 4, 2019
    Kimberly A. Hill for Appellant.
    Scott H. Silver and Steven H. Preston for Appellees.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wetherell, Ray, and Winsor, JJ., concur.


text:
    CAPITAL MARKETS GROUP, et al., Appellants, v. LENDINGHOME FUNDING CORP., Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2276
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Helen J. SIMON, Petitioner, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D18-3364
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Deshawn Antwan ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-5329
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4251
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 6, 2019
    Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Justin Foster Karpf, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Timothy L. Newhall, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wolf, Wetherell, and Makar, JJ., concur.


text:
    STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Sequana BEALE, Appellee.
    Nos. 1D18-304 1D18-1698
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 6, 2019
    Rhonda B. Boggess of Taylor, Day, Grimm & Boyd, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
    Daniel A. Iracki and Howard C. Coker of Coker Law, Jacksonville; and Rebecca Bowen Creed and Bryan S. Gowdy of Creed & Gowdy, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Rowe, Jay, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.


text:
    Nathaniel WILBANKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-5203
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Keith Kasheem HINES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-5345
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Mark PALETTI and Tim Paletti, Appellants, v. KEARNS HOLDINGS, LLC and Dane Gilbert, Appellees.
    No. 1D17-5358
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 8, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Anthony GRAHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-878
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 2, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Eva Electris CANNIE aka Ava Electris Cannie aka Eve Helene Cannie, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D18-2535
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 2, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Shukel MUTCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3596
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Shukel MUTCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3594
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Moses JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-654
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Louis MERCADO, Appellant, v. Jacob SOREY, Warden, Wakulla Correctional Institution; Mark S. Inch, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellees.
    No. 1D17-3212
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 8, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    John Thomas PAYNE, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4013
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Cassandra Nicole SPENCER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3063
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Philip James HAMMAC, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3041
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert BING a/k/a Anthony Green, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3758
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Daniel E. OSBORNE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Lisa C. CARPENTER, f/k/a Lisa C. Osborne, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4575
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Andrew CORPUS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Kristin KANNER, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1938
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Laura GALLOWAY and David Galloway, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. L. A. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, n/a/a Fitness International LLC and Keiser Corporation, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1554
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Roderick George CANNON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-261
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed March 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    BEK VENTURES, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. OASIS TOWER TWO CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0064
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Michael PRANCE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1390
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Sherol ZIEGENBEIN, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1486
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted. Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Molar GOURY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida and Bob Gualtieri, Sheriff, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1593
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted.


text:
    Tracy GROENENDAAL and Ronald Soriano, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. REFLECTION ISLES MASTER ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1204
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Shaun SMITH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. TT OF PINE RIDGE, INC., d/b/a Naples Nissan, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0199
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Joshua Nathaniel MASSICOTTE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1314
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Tremaine Latroy BAILEM, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Leo KREMENCHUKER, Esq., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1821
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred.


text:
    Matthew Gregory MANJA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Danielle GOTTSCHLING, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1628
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Bassam MINAWI, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. G. Andrew GRACY, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1403
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Kabil KRAJA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1408
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 02, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Dennis Lee HARGROVE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1347
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Laila VANDERPOOL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Alvin DHALU, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0919
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Marlene CONCEPCION, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Robert CONCEPCION, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0944
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Demetrics SMITH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1174
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Christina PAYLAN, M.D. Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Lyann GOUDIE, Esq., Goudie & Kohn, a Limited Liability Corporation, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1349
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    April 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Jennifer KEYES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0781
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Elisender Ugarte FROMETA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE o/b/o Maribel Reyes Montano, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0875
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Marco L. COLEMAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE o/b/o Tonnetta Rene Ballard, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0892
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 8, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Jaclyn A. TREDWAY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Roger CONLEY, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0560
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    April 04, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    O. M., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0541
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Monica COUGHLIN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Richard Brian ORTH, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3866
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Barbara Ann KELLY, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0522
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Ashley Gonzalez TUNSTALL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. A. Gordon TUNSTALL, III, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-3897
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    December 20, 2018
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Writ of certiorari is denied.


text:
    ARCHI TRUST LLC, AS TRUSTEE FOR TRUST #102716-4426, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION and Donovan Southwell a/k/a Donovan M. Southwell, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0566
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    J. Stanford LIFSEY, Esq., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Wayne A. MC CLAIN, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0251
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    William STIRNKORB, AS TRUSTEE FOR the STIRNKORB REVOCABLE TRUST DATED 08/26/14, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FAMILY SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1582
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Russell Warren LEWERS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1266
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    April 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Breanna Jean JOHNSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Joseph Brendan JOHNSON, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0488
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 03, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    L. B., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1870
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Michael Courtney ESSIX, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1823
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Scott HUMINSKI, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1247
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mandamus is granted.


text:
    Arthur A. GENOVESE, III, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Mark INCH, Secretary D. O. C., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1769
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 28, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    R.M., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0174
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Todd D. MINNIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0502
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    CENTERSTATE BANK, N.A., as Successor by Merger to Harbor Community Bank, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. G. Perry MASON, III, Patrick Talbott, David Veley and John C. Shoop, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0544
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted. Dismissed.


text:
    William S. PERATINO, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. LEE COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-2524
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Granted. Dismissed.


text:
    Anthony KEYES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0779
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Michael E. ROMANO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. BANK OF AMERICA, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0993
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 08, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Nancy V. DOMANICO, as Trustee, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, Doing Business as Christiana Trust, Not in Its Individual Capacity, but Solely as Trustee FOR BCAT 2015-13ATT, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4246
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 02, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Dwayne JOHNSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-0482
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Princess Renae SMITH, a/k/a Prynciss Reynee Sabra, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D19-1935
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred.


text:
    Jason C. LEMAY, DOC #102574, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3007
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Carlos E. WIGGINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2736
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Luis DELGADO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1349
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed March 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lucner JOSEPH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2531
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed March 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Richard PLUMER II, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee, etc., Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1724
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed March 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ismael SANCHEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2596
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed March 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    John J. CARROLL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2270
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 17, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    R.V., the Father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D18-1888
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 17, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ira L. PICKETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2262
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Juan C. LOPEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1909
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.B., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2565
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Wesley JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Nos. 3D18-1585 3D18-1775
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    T.A., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1358
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 17, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    SICE, INC., a Corporation, and Richard Mann, Individually and as Agent for Sice, Inc., Appellants, v. Caitlin MILSTEAD, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Zachary Stinson, Appellee.
    No. 3D19-0015
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed April 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Antonio M. GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. In re: ESTATE OF Emiliano O. GARCIA, et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D18-2169
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    C. WILSON LLC and Marita Stavrou, Appellants, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1066
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Wendell OLIVER and Kelsey Oliver, Appellants, v. SAILORMEN, INC., etc., Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2555
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 1, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Keon Tiquan WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-0643
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gerson JUAREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1639
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 16, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Isaac D. CASTILLO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Nos. 3D18-468 3D18-638
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 16, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    William PIERRE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2418
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jose CISNEROS-GONZALEZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D18-1885
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    April 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Andre Q. SLATON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2093
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Frantz DEUS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1835
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sergio ACEVEDO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1660
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Guillermo A. ALONSO and Adriana C. Alonso, Appellants, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, N.A., Appellee.
    No. 4D18-3347
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 16, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Matthew Paul MORRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-3334
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 16, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Donabell FLETCHER, Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-3683
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 16, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Aurelio OCANA GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-0136
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed January 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.S., the father, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and the Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.
    No. 4D18-3493
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 23, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.H., the Mother, and L.S., the Father, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.
    Nos. 4D18-3803 4D19-6 4D19-540
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 23, 2019]
    Thomas J. Butler of Thomas Butler, P.A., Miami Beach, for appellant J.H., the Mother.
    Gary L. Pickett, West Palm Beach, for appellant L.S, the Father.
    Andrew Feigenbaum of Children's Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for appellee Department of Children and Families.
    Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, Tallahassee, and Gillian N. Leytham of The Leytham Group, Tampa, for appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.
   Per Curiam.

Affirmed.

Warner, Forst and Kuntz, JJ., concur.


text:
    D.N., the father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee.
    No. 4D19-203
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 23, 2019]
    Lori D. Shelby, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
    Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General Children's Legal Services, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Department of Children and Families.
    Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals and Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Senior Attorney, Guardian ad Litem Program, Tallahassee, for appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.
   Per Curiam.

Affirmed .

Damoorgian, Levine and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.


text:
    Anthony MCINTYRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D19-451
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 16, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Charles T. MILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-751
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    Charles T. Mills, Okeechobee, pro se.
    No Appearance for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, COHEN and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.


text:
    Patrick SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-420
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    Patrick Smith, Coleman, pro se.
    No Appearance for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BERGER, HARRIS and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.


text:
    Saul SANTIAGO, Appellant, v. Keishla RODRIGUEZ-VEGA, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3066
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Joan SZKUTAK and David E. Szkutak, Trustee of the David E. Szkutak Trust, Appellants, v. Terri Lynn PEREIRA, Ryan J. Pereira, First Coastal Homes, Inc. and Brian D. Eckstein, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D18-1349
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    E.K., Mother of C.K., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-237
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 23, 2019
    Ryan Thomas Truskoski, Special Assistant Regional Counsel, and Jeffrey Deen, Appellate Counsel, Office of the Criminal and Civil Regional Counsel, Casselberry, for Appellant.
    Kelley Schaeffer, Appellate Counsel, Department of Children & Families, Children's Legal Services, Bradenton, for Appellee.
    Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Appellate Counsel, Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, and Kristen M. Fiore and Melanie Kalmanson, Akerman LLP, Tallahassee, for Guardian ad Litem Program.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.


text:
    Guillermo A. RUBENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-168
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    Guillermo A. Rubens, Daytona Beach, pro se.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BERGER, EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.


text:
    Jashon MOBLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-55
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    C.B., Father of C.B., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-4016
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Rafael TRINIDAD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida and Department of Corrections, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D18-4001
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    Rafael Trinidad, Crestview, pro se.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee, State of Florida.
    No Appearance for Department of Corrections.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.


text:
    Theodore ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3818
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    Theodore Robinson, Milton, pro se.
    No Appearance for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BERGER, LAMBERT and HARRIS, JJ., concur.


text:
    DEREASE IRONS, Appellant, v. SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC. and Lauren E. Hill a/k/a Lauren Hill, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D18-2852
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Amari Nicholas HAIR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2809
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Salvatore CIPOLLA, Appellant, v. Carl CHASE, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2675
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    A.J., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2661
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Michael D. NORTHCUTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2625
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Pamela Marie BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2447
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Gerald Lavert JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2222
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kenwand Jurmaine THOMPSON, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1844
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kenwand Jurmaine THOMPSON, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1765
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kevin THAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1668
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    E.K., Mother of J.K., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-238
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Johan Rafael QUINONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1143
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Juan GUEVARA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-870
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Joshua WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3679 & 5D17-3748
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Antoni EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-452
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Alphanso E. HARRISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-299
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jessica Lynn BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1553
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Matthew Funderburk, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah A. Chance, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EISNAUGLE, GROSSHANS and SASSO, JJ., concur.


text:
    Paul Kevin DYKES, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-722
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Nathaniel DELGADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-516
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    James AMISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-753
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Angel RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-1205
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Shiloh Aaron BESTDAVIDSEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3197
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Mark Alexander Williams, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah A. Chance, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.


text:
    Cedric KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2835
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    Paula C. Coffman and Jeffrey D. Deen, Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Orlando, for Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur.


text:
    Danny Robert CROOM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1899
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jason Matthew ROHRER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1707
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ronald LEBED, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1128
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Darnelle Paige Lawshe, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Andrea K. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.


text:
    Cedric KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3535
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kwesi PHILPOT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3419
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Roberto Gonzalez ARROYO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3476
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.


text:
    Daniel RESLIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-1038
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Douglas Alton NETTLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-338
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Mark JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-296
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kevin JOSEPH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3833
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Willie Fred GRANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3473
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Emmanuel DESOTO, Appellant, v. Elizabeth DESOTO, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1436, 5D18-2058
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Saghi Sissy ATKINSON f/k/a Saghi Sissy Duda, Appellant, v. Alexander Nicholas DUDA, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1063
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 11, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ilham BOURYAL and Ashraf Ibraham, Appellants, v. Ahmed BADAWY, Sasoun Sasoun, Nishad Khan, Nishad Khan, L.P., a Florida Limited Partnership, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D18-829
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 11, 2019
    Tyler E. Mesmer, Topouzis & Associates, P.C., Aventura, for Appellants.
    Jonathan J. A. Paul, of Lewis Roberts, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for Appellees, Ahmed Badawy and Sasoun Sasoun.
    No Appearance for Other Appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., ORFINGER and HARRIS, JJ., concur.


text:
    Steven BERNHARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3560
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 4, 2019
    James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Craig R. Atack, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., WALLIS and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.


text:
    Mary TRAYNOR, Appellant, v. WINTER PARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, LTD. and City of Winter Park, Florida, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D18-653
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 11, 2019
    Billie Jo Belcher and Heather A. Trombly, of Legally Pink Law, PLLC, Winter park, for Appellant.
    Michael J. Roper and Anna E. Engelman, of Bell & Roper, P.A., Orlando, and Cameron E. Shackelford and Alexander Muszynski, III of Meier, Bonner, Muszynski, O'Dell & Harvey, P.A., Longwood, for Appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BERGER, EDWARDS and SASSO, JJ., concur.


text:
    Shawn HILLERY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-894
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 11, 2019
    John H. King, Maitland, for Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.


text:
    Marion KAMINSKY, individually and as Trustee of The Sylvia Donenfeld Testamentary Trust, Appellant, v. Jeffrey HECHT and Monica Hecht, husband and wife, as legal guardian of Tara Hecht, a minor, and Shana Hecht, an individual, as beneficiaries of The Sylvia Donenfeld Testamentary Trust Dated 8/14/2003, Appellees.
    No. 4D18-3442
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 8, 2019]
    Gene D. Lipscher and George P. Ord of Gene D. Lipscher, P.A., Jupiter, for appellant.
    Geoffrey D. Ittleman of the Law Offices of Geoffrey D. Ittleman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

Defendant, Marion Kaminsky, trustee of the Sylvia Donenfeld Testamentary Trust (the "Trust"), appeals a non-final order denying her motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We reverse because Florida's long-arm statute, section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2018), does not provide a basis for a Florida court to assert personal jurisdiction over this foreign defendant. Specifically, the plaintiffs' amended complaint does not establish that Kaminsky committed a tortious act in this state.

The Trust was established in New York in 2003. Within the Trust, separate accounts were to be created for the benefit of multiple beneficiaries. Kaminsky began to serve as trustee in 2008 and moved the principal place of administration to New Jersey in 2012.

Plaintiffs, beneficiaries of the Trust (the "Beneficiaries"), allege that Kaminsky breached her fiduciary duties as trustee by failing to provide an accounting of the Trust, mismanaging the investment of Trust funds, and commingling Trust funds meant for their benefit with the funds of other beneficiary accounts.

This Court "conduct[s] a de novo review of a trial court's [purely legal] ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction." Wendt v. Horowitz , 822 So.2d 1252, 1256 (Fla. 2002). "Because this case arises from a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction," the facts are derived "from the affidavits in support of the motion to dismiss, and the transcripts and records submitted in opposition to the motion to dismiss." Id. at 1254.

The Florida Supreme Court has articulated a two-step inquiry for determining whether long-arm jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a given case is proper:

In determining whether long-arm jurisdiction is appropriate in a given case, two inquiries must be made. First, it must be determined that the complaint alleges sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within the ambit of the statute; and if it does, the next inquiry is whether sufficient "minimum contacts" are demonstrated to satisfy due process requirements.

Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais , 554 So.2d 499, 502 (Fla. 1989) (citation omitted). "Both parts must be satisfied for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant." Am. Fin. Trading Corp. v. Bauer , 828 So.2d 1071, 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Plaintiff bears the initial burden of pleading the basis for service under the long-arm statute. Venetian Salami , 554 So.2d at 502. "Initially, the plaintiff may seek to obtain jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant by pleading the basis for service in the language of the statute without pleading the supporting facts." Id. ; see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070(h). Plaintiff may also "alleg[e] specific facts demonstrating that the defendant's actions fit within one or more of the subsections of section 48.193, Florida's long-arm statute." Washington Capital Corp. v. Milandco, Ltd. , 695 So.2d 838, 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

Florida's long-arm statute provides in relevant part:

(1)(a) A person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits himself or herself and, if he or she is a natural person, his or her personal representative to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action arising from any of the following acts:
....
2. Committing a tortious act within this state.

§ 48.193(1)(a) 2., Fla. Stat.

The Beneficiaries' complaint does not track the language of the long-arm statute or allege specific facts to demonstrate that Kaminsky's alleged breaches of fiduciary duty fit within a subsection of the long-arm statute. The Beneficiaries first mentioned the long-arm statute in their response to Kaminsky's motion to dismiss. In their response, they argued that section 48.193(1)(a) 2. was satisfied because the alleged acts caused injury in Florida.

Generally, physical presence in Florida is not required to "commit a tortious act" for purposes of the long-arm statute. See Wendt , 822 So.2d at 1260. However, a majority of the district courts, including this court, have held that "mere injury in Florida resulting from a tort committed elsewhere is insufficient to support personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant." Consol. Energy Inc. v. Strumor , 920 So.2d 829, 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ; see also Casita, L.P. v. Maplewood Equity Partners L.P. , 960 So.2d 854, 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) ; Homeway Furniture Co. of Mount Airy, Inc. v. Horne , 822 So.2d 533, 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). But see Allerton v. State Dep't of Ins. , 635 So.2d 36, 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Kaminsky submitted an affidavit declaring that she has never resided in Florida, the settlor of the Trust never resided in Florida, the Trust has always been administered from either New York or New Jersey, and no trust assets are located in Florida. The Beneficiaries did not contest these assertions by a counter-affidavit. See Cosmopolitan Health Spa, Inc. v. Health Indus., Inc. , 362 So.2d 367, 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

There are no allegations of acts or misconduct by Kaminsky in Florida. The failure to provide an accounting and any mismanagement of Trust assets occurred in New York or New Jersey. Cf. Weinberg v. Weinberg , 936 So.2d 707, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that, for venue purposes, breaches of fiduciary duty by trustee occurred in county where trust was sited and administered).

"Since the long arm allegations prong of the Venetian Salami test has not been met, we need not consider the minimum contacts aspect." PK Computers, Inc. v. Indep. Travel Agencies of Am., Inc. , 656 So.2d 254, 255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

The order of the trial court denying defendant's motion to quash is therefore reversed. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Gerber, C.J., Levine and Conner, JJ., concur.


author: BERGER, J.,

text:
    GOLD CROWN RESORT MARKETING INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. Timothy PHILLPOTTS, Susan Taylor, Bethann E. Ritter Snyder, Eric Hillis and Karen Confer, Each Individually and as Class Representatives, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D18-840
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Opinion filed April 29, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 5, 2019
    David A. Shontz, of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Orlando, and Jake Monk, of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Miami, for Appellant.
    Steven R. Main, of Hill, Rugh, Keller & Main, P.L., Orlando, for Appellees.
   BERGER, J.,

Gold Crown Resort Marketing, Inc. (Gold Crown) appeals the trial court's order denying its motion to dismiss for improper venue in this class action case. We reverse.

Gold Crown, which maintains its corporate headquarters in Florida, runs a resort business on a membership model and uses local affiliates to solicit business. The affiliates execute membership agreements with customers requiring Gold Crown to issue a membership. The membership agreements contain forum selection clauses, and the language in these clauses varies between the different affiliates.

Timothy Phillpotts, Susan Taylor, Bethann E. Ritter Snyder, Eric Hillis, and Karen Confer, in their individual capacities and as class representatives, filed a five-count class action complaint against Gold Crown alleging breach of contract, violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), unjust enrichment, fraud in the inducement and seeking declaratory judgment on the interpretation of the membership agreements. The class action complaint alleged that Gold Crown improperly charged annual membership fees that were waived in the membership agreements.

The membership agreements executed between the Gold Crown affiliates, Phillpotts, and Taylor were attached to the complaint. The membership agreements for Ritter Snyder, Hillis, and Confer were not. Phillpotts and Taylor, both California residents, executed their membership agreements with Gold Crown affiliates located in California. And although they contracted with differing California affiliates, their membership agreements contained the same choice of law and venue clause:

11) The construction, validity and performance of this agreement will be governed by the laws of the registered locale of the Affiliate and will be subjected to the exclusive jurisdiction of the applicable courts.

Gold Crown filed a motion to dismiss. Gold Crown argued, inter alia , that because the membership agreements for three of the five class representatives were not attached to the complaint, the case must be dismissed as to those three plaintiffs pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.130(a). As to the remaining two plaintiffs, Phillpotts and Taylor, the motion argued that dismissal was required because the mandatory forum selection clause in the membership agreements attached to the complaint precluded adjudication of the membership agreements in Florida courts.

In response to Gold Crown's motion to dismiss, Phillpotts and Taylor argued that the forum selection clause was ambiguous and therefore not mandatory. They further argued that because Gold Crown drafted the agreements the ambiguity should be construed against it. The trial court agreed and denied Gold Crown's motion to dismiss. This appeal followed.

Gold Crown argues that the forum selection clauses in the Phillpotts and Taylor agreements contain mandatory unambiguous language that requires that the underlying action be brought in California and, consequently, that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it determined the clause was ambiguous and should be construed against the drafter. We agree.

The trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss based on the interpretation of a contractual forum selection clause is reviewed de novo as a matter of law. R.S.B. Ventures, Inc. v. Berlowitz, 201 So.3d 719, 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting Am. Boxing & Athletic Ass'n v. Young, 911 So.2d 862, 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ). The existence of ambiguity in a contract term is also a question of law reviewed de novo. North Star Beauty Salon, Inc. v. Artzt, 821 So.2d 356, 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing Bd. of Trs. of the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Lost Tree Vill. Corp., 805 So.2d 22, 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ).

Contracts should be construed to give effect to the intentions of the parties. Whitley v. Royal Trails Prop. Owners' Ass'n, 910 So.2d 381, 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (citing Royal Oak Landing Homeowner's Ass'n v. Pelletier, 620 So.2d 786, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) ). When "the terms of a contract are unambiguous, the parties' intent must be determined from within the four corners of the document." Burns v. Barfield, 732 So.2d 1202, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citing Misala, Inc. v. Eagles, 662 So.2d 1389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) ). "In the absence of ambiguity, the language itself is the best evidence of the parties' intent and its plain meaning controls." Id. The canons of construction cannot be used when the contract is unambiguous as there is no need for judicial construction. Antoniazzi v. Wardak, 259 So.3d 206, 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (quoting Hunt v. First Nat'l Bank of Tampa, 381 So.2d 1194, 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) ); Miller v. Kase, 789 So.2d 1095, 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citing Herring v. First S. Ins. Co., 522 So.2d 1066, 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) ).

The parties to a contract "have the right to select the forum for prospective disputes." Baker v. Econ. Research Serv., Inc., 242 So.3d 450, 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (citing Land O'Sun Mgmt. Corp. v. Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co., 961 So.2d 1078, 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ). Forum selection clauses may be either permissive or mandatory in nature. Quick Cash, LLC v. Tradenet Enter. Inc., 211 So.3d 1113, 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (citing DVDPlay, Inc. v. DVD 123 LLC, 930 So.2d 816, 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) ). They do not " 'oust' courts of their jurisdiction" but instead relate to venue. Taurus Stornoway Invs., LLC v. Kerley, 38 So.3d 840, 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (quoting Manrique v. Fabbri, 493 So.2d 437, 439-40 (Fla. 1986) ). "A mandatory forum selection clause must be enforced unless it is shown to be unreasonable or unjust." Illinois Union Ins. Co. v. Co-Free, Inc., 128 So.3d 820, 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (quoting Land O'Sun Mgmt. Corp., 961 So.2d at 1080 ).

"A mandatory forum selection clause requires that litigation be brought in a particular forum while a permissive forum selection clause merely represents consent to jurisdiction." R.S.B. Ventures, Inc., 201 So.3d at 720 (citing Garcia Granados Quinones v. Swiss Bank Corp. (Overseas), S.A., 509 So.2d 273, 274-75 (Fla. 1987) ). Whether the clause is mandatory or permissive is not decided by "specific 'magic words.' " Quick Cash, LLC, 211 So.3d at 1114 (citing Golf Scoring Sys. Unlimited, Inc. v. Remedio, 877 So.2d 827, 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ). "Instead, the test is whether, when read as a whole, the forum selection clause indicates that the parties intended to try a case in the specified forum and to the exclusion of all others." Id. (citing Celistics, LLC v. Gonzalez, 22 So.3d 824, 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) ). A forum selection clause is mandatory if it uses words such as "must," "exclusive," or "shall." H. Gregory 1, Inc. v. Cook, 222 So.3d 610, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). But the absence of the words "shall" or "must" "does not necessarily render a forum selection clause permissive." Antoniazzi, 259 So.3d at 209.

We conclude that the forum selection clauses in the Phillpotts and Taylor agreements are clear and unambiguous. They also contain mandatory language by including the term "exclusive jurisdiction." See id. at 209-10 (citing Agile Assurance Grp. Ltd. v. Palmer, 147 So.3d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) ). And while they are considered floating forum selection clauses because they do not specify a specific forum, they are enforceable in Florida even though they do not specify a specific city, county, state, or country. See id. at 211-12 ; see also Lopez v. United Capital Fund, LLC, 88 So.3d 421, 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Here, the "registered locale of the Affiliate" is readily determined by looking at the first line of the agreements, which state that the affiliates in these two agreements are located in San Diego, California, for Phillpotts and Ventura, California, for Taylor. Thus, as it relates to the Phillpotts and Taylor agreements, the "exclusive jurisdiction of the applicable courts" refers only to California courts.

Because the forum selection clause governs the venue of the Phillpotts and Taylor agreements, the complaint should be dismissed as to them. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court dismiss Phillpotts and Taylor as class representatives and dismiss their individual claims for improper venue on all of the counts alleged in the complaint.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

      We have jurisdiction over the nonfinal order. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(A) ; Baker v. Econ. Research Serv., Inc., 242 So.3d 450, 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) ("Aggrieved parties may appeal nonfinal orders that concern venue, Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(A), so they can avoid being 'forced to litigate the entire controversy in the wrong forum.' " (quoting Mgmt. Comput. Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So.2d 627, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) ) ).

      Phillpotts and Taylor are from California and used Gold Crown affiliates from California. Hillis is also from California. Ritter Snyder is from Maryland and used a Gold Crown affiliate in Arizona. Confer is a resident of New York.

      §§ 501.201-.213, Fla. Stat. (2017).

      Phillpotts executed a standard membership agreement with Metropolitan Clubs International dba Portfolio to Paradise located in San Diego. Taylor executed a standard membership agreement with the now-defunct Vacation World International, located in Ventura.

      Gold Crown has not raised the rule 1.130(a) issue on appeal.

      We decline to address the forum selection clause in the Ritter Snyder agreement, which differs from the forum selection clauses in the Phillpotts and Taylor agreements, because Gold Crown failed to raise the issue below.

      Gold Crown argues that the forum selection clauses apply to the noncontractual counts for violation of the FDUTPA and unjust enrichment. The forum selection clauses in the Phillpotts and Taylor agreements encompass the "construction, validity and performance" of the agreements. The forum selection clauses apply to the FDUTPA and unjust enrichment claims because those claims relate to the performance of the agreements in that the class seeks damages and an injunction for being denied the benefits of their agreements unless they pay an annual fee, which the class alleges was waived, to Gold Crown. See SAI Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Applied Sys., Inc., 858 So.2d 401, 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) ; see also Farmers Grp., Inc. v. Madio & Co., 869 So.2d 581, 582-83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

      We also decline to address the issue of venue as to Hillis and Confer because their agreements are not in the record, and Gold Crown failed to raise the issue in its initial brief. See J.A.B. Enters. v. Gibbons, 596 So.2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ("[A]n issue not raised in an initial brief is deemed abandoned and may not be raised for the first time in a reply brief." (citing Snyder v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 574 So.2d 1161, 1161-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) ) ).


author: SASSO, J.

text:
    Kevin S. OSBORNE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    Case No. 5D18-3997
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Opinion filed May 3, 2019
    Valarie Linnen, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.
   SASSO, J.

Kevin S. Osborne ("Petitioner") petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the trial court's order denying his motions to modify probation. We deny the petition.

In December 2016, Petitioner pled no contest to resisting a law enforcement officer without violence, felony fleeing, battery on a person 65 years of age or older, and child abuse without great bodily harm. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Petitioner was sentenced to three years' incarceration, followed by seven years of probation.

In October 2018, Petitioner filed two motions seeking to rescind or modify the conditions of his probation. Specifically, Petitioner sought to modify the conditions requiring that he live with his father and wear an ankle monitor. In a single order, the trial court summarily denied both motions. Relying on Stuart v. State , 988 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), Petitioner argues that the trial court erred and departed from the essential requirements of the law in denying his motions without an evidentiary hearing.

Section 948.03(2), Florida Statutes (2018), provides that a trial court may rescind or modify the terms and conditions of probation at any time during the probationary period. While section 948.06, Florida Statutes (2018), requires notice and a hearing before a court may modify a probationary sentence with enhanced or additional terms, nothing in chapter 948 requires a court to hold an evidentiary hearing upon receipt of a motion seeking modification of previously imposed conditions. See , e.g. , Clark v. State , 579 So.2d 109, 110-11, 110 n.3 (Fla. 1991) (holding that trial court erred in enhancing terms of probation without first conducting hearing, even though defendant agreed to modification, but distinguishing modification under section 948.06 from section 948.03 ); see also Gerber v. State , 856 So.2d 1113, 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ("The test ... as to whether a modification is really an enhancement, turns on whether the change is more restrictive than the original condition." (quoting Waldon v. State , 670 So.2d 1155, 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) ) ).

Despite this, the Second District Court of Appeal held in Stuart and Dukharan v. State , 96 So.3d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), that a trial court erred by denying a motion to modify conditions of probation without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Dukharan court appeared to rely on the Stuart decision. See Dukharan , 96 So.3d at 454. However, the Stuart court did not explain its basis for requiring an evidentiary hearing under the unique factual circumstances of that case, which involved ex parte communications between the court and the state attorney's office. Stuart , 988 So.2d at 1288. Those circumstances are distinguishable from the facts presented here.

In this case, Petitioner's motions did not seek enhanced probationary terms; rather, the motions sought rescission and modification of his existing probationary conditions. Thus, the notice and hearing requirements of section 948.06 are not applicable. Because section 948.03(2) does not contain similar requirements, the court properly considered Petitioner's motions without a hearing. See Cont'l Heritage Ins. Co. v. State , 981 So.2d 583, 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (noting that courts should not read additional requirements into statute). Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to establish that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law.

PETITION FOR WRIT DENIED.

COHEN and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.


text:
    Penny BARNES, Appellant, v. Wendy JOHNS, and The Warrington Bank, a Corporation, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-1658
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 6, 2019
    James L. Chase and Virginia C. Ralls of Chase, Higdon & Ralls, PLC, Pensacola, for Appellant.
    Travis R. Johnson of Meador & Johnson, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellee Wendy Johns; Linda A. Hoffman of Carver, Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn Blossman & Areaux, LLC, Pensacola, for Appellee The Warrington Bank.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED . See Holub v. Holub , 54 So.3d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that a party is bound by prior admissions under oath).

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