text:
    Shukel MUTCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3593
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    John L. COLLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4366
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Willton K. HERBERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2968
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Darnell SINGLETON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1796
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Laquareious Jahmichael GRANDISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1600
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Christopher Lynn CORMIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3308
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Shaunacie Katerra THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3015
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Eddrice Tamario WATKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2578
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kimberly CANNON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3223
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Donald BANKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-4614
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Laquareious Jahmichael GRANDISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1599
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Amelia D. WILKISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-3941
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    David Ren MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-3778
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Philip James HAMMAC, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3043
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Arthur B. PELLOM, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3192
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Philip James HAMMAC, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3044
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    CITY OF GAINESVILLE d/b/a Gainesville Regional Utilities, Appellant, v. Jacob T. RODGERS and William Stormant, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4545
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    John OSBORN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4735
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    John Osborn, pro se, Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

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


text:
    Jerell WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4677
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    Jerell White, pro se, Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Barbara Debelius, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

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


text:
    Marquis Derrell BRYANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1428
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 21, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Roy Vernon NETTLES Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4139
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 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.

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


text:
    Wendy Sue CARTER, Former Wife, Appellant, v. Jasper James CARTER, Former Husband, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4107
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    Caleb D. Rowland of Rowland Law, LLC, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
    Jasper James Carter, pro se, Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

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


text:
    Shon Glynn MILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3963
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Demerrius Antwon STALLWORTH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3920
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Winston MURPHY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D19-0319
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    Winston Murphy, pro se, Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

DISMISSED .

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


text:
    Glenn A. WHIGHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4495
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 6, 2019
    Glenn A. Whigham, pro se, Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

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


text:
    Adoniss PORTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4218
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    Adoniss Porter, pro se, Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

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


text:
    MICHAEL TUELE JR., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4055
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    BCB MANAGEMENT, LLC, Petitioner, v. Jessica DUGGAN, Patrick J. Duggan, Betsy Harrington, Arthur Ruttenberg Homes, Inc., Sovran Building Systems, Inc., Caleb Stucco, Inc., and Apex Technology, Respondents.
    No. 1D18-2801
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Kendris WATTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2720
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jamal Cordell JORDAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2135
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Carlos BONNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4132
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lori HOPPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4081
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 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 .

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


text:
    Jeanette C. MOBLEY, Appellant, v. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION and Navarre Pediatrics, PL, Appellees.
    No. 1D18-1518
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Daleisha BRADFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4217
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    D'Antonio Keith WARREN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3016
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Chetwin D. JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1404
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 24, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. and Gallagher Bassett Services, Appellants, v. Luis CANDURRA, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3861
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 24, 2019
    David J. Gerhardt of Jones, Hurley & Hand, P.A., Miami, for Appellants.
    Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, and Jesus E. Ravelo of Rosenberg & Rosenberg, P.A., Hollywood, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

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


text:
    Leon COLTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-2944
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Brenda WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Appellee.
    No. 1D18-0899
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Rakesh VERMA, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D19-0907
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    Rakesh Verma, pro se, Petitioner.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.

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

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


text:
    Phillip M. KESSLER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D18-5234
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   DISMISSED.


text:
    Omar Q. FELTON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D18-4968
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Cachet X. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-4580
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gregory DECKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1992
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    William Isiah JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-1963
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Emery Deshon HANDY Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3353
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Darrell L. WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D18-3211
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 2019
    Darrell L. Washington, pro se, Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

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


text:
    Ernest Tyre MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1751
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher CARITHERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3695
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Teddrick JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4711
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    YINZI JIN, LMT, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2426
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed March 27, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lisa GOODMAN and Marc R. Goodman, Individually and as Natural Parents and Guardians of N.G., a Minor, Appellants, v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC., and Ningbo Litesun Electric Co., Ltd, Appellees.
    No. 4D18-3002
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    May 16, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christine TOLLENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4886
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Susana BALDWIN, a/k/a Susana Sanches Luviano Baldwin, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2370
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Billy J. ROGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2196
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ashley Yvonne PARKER, DOC #S27798, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-5238
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael Stephen MCKINNEY, DOC #391008, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2162
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gregory T. FLEMING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2460
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Felipe CHAVEZ, DOC #Y40557, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-1886
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Eric Wynn GALLMON, DOC #T32665, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-2940
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Roger HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1182
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jonas JOSEPH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1424
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher Lee DUNCAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-176
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Darrell Dwayne WHITE, DOC #501185, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1915
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Leon W. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2234
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Otniel CALDERON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3691
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joseph Keene MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2443
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joshua Allan KLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1920
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Zackery Antonio DENEGALL, DOC #366840, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D16-3955
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 5, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jeffrey R. BATTISHILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3717
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Carlos Ramon SANTIAGO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-391
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 3, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher ISRAEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1242
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Stephen BREWSTER, DOC# 136721, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1435
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Benjamin J. FREDERICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2084
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Stephen BREWSTER, DOC# 136721, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-1432
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joshua P. MOORE, DOC #R65935, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2361
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Raymond A. ATUGUBA, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    Case No. 2D18-3782
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Mario D. POWERS, DOC #X56990, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4684
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    David V. GILLILAND, DOC # R36487, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2352
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Paul William CLARK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3277
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joshua P. MOORE, DOC #R65935, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3283
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Bobby Jahswonn MCNEAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-650
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jeffrey Bernard STEVENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-4665
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rodney FENELUS, DOC# M40394, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2980
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Koty Cheyenne LEWIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2307
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Richard CRAIG, DOC #059637, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3227
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Noah WORTHINGTON, DOC #H52397, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-894
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 10, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Abraham MIRANDA-REYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-3698
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Timothy Ryan HAMMOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D17-5019
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 22, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Javoney D. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-2974
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 22, 2019.
    Javoney D. Roberts, pro se.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.


text:
    Tyree GLAND, DOC #R52379, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-3743
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christina WATTS and Daniel Watts, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and Robert Riddick, Appellee/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 2D18-4930
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 31, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Accepted. Appeal is dismissed.


text:
    Carlton GARY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-4052
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher BURTON, DOC # 533366, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D18-941
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    GALLEON BAY CORPORATION, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, Florida, and the State of Florida, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
    No. 3D16-1502
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed September 12, 2018.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    E.R., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2181
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    L.G., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2174
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    D.M., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2002
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Alexandre OLIVA, etc., Appellant, v. Ronald CICERCHIA, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1471
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 6, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.V., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1385
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Andre FLETCHER and Sharon Dammar-Fletcher, Appellants, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1022
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Charles ARENA, Appellant, v. Jeffrey TEW and Tew Cardenas, LLP, Appellees.
    No. 3D18-709
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    CENTRAL CARILLON BEACH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. CARILLON HOTEL, LLC, et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D18-542
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Reginald A. RICHARDSON and Corrine J. Richardson, Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee.
    No. 3D17-0271
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    John LATHAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-2638
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jack KACHKAR, Appellant, v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., etc., et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D17-2030
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Alain DEGRAEVE, Appellant, v. Elizabeth WILLIS, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1831
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Alberto F. SARASUA, Appellant, v. AVILA PROPERTIES, LLC, et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D17-1091
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kenton G. FINDLAY, Appellant, v. STAR LAKES ASSOCIATION, INC., (A Condominium Association), Appellee.
    No. 3D18-0294
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Maurice ELLIS, et al., Appellants, v. HOME INVESTMENT FUND IV, LP, et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D17-2758
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Darrell WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-0609
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Daniel James SEARSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1796
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed March 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Glenn JACKSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2605
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed March 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Grady NELSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D19-93
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed March 6, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Isabel DEL PINO ALLEN, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1243
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ronald WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-3445
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [April 4, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.L., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-2024
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed March 27, 2019.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ruben D. FERRER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D19-201
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed March 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Avissmael DIAZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D19-0175
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed March 20, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Miakkar L. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D19-574
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 9, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Marie Tuesday ESSA, Appellant, v. Michael GURRIERI, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-3677
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 2, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Anthony CRUZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D19-284
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [April 25, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Javier JIMENEZ-JIMENEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D19-265
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [April 11, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rene RIVERA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D19-27
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 9, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Carwin Junior PETTIS Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D19-418
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [May 9, 2019]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gerald Andre JOE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3366
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed March 26, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Miguel Angel VARGAS-SANTIAGO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-277
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed March 26, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 17, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Roberto J. RAMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-222
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 2, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Dimitry TELAMOUR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3871
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 2, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    David F. BEAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3280
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Angelo Renarda JULIAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2108
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 2, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Donald D. WEST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-4
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 9, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    M.M., Father of A.M., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3662
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 9, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Rafael A. CONTRERAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3603
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 9, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jeffrey C. ABRAMOWSKI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3560
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 9, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Antwauane BELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3446
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 16, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Christopher Craig WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2875
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 16, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 22, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Antonio R. REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2694
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 9, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Karl J. RIEDTHALER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3583
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 9, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Arthur WATERS, III, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF8 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST and Felicia A. Waters, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D18-300
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jose M. AGUIRRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3477
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 30, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jason TUCKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3368
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 23, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Mac Vernell SESSLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2481
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 23, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Timothy THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-587
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Steven SPEAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3236
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Lillian D. MANNEY, Appellant, v. Jean-Paul PINELLI, Space Coast Builders and Contractors, Inc., MBV Engineering, Inc., f/k/a Mosby, Moia, Bowles & Associates, Inc., f/k/a Mosby & Associates, Inc., Randall L. Mosby, and Larry Cavaliere, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D18-1774
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Desmin Dwight REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3811
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed April 30, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Alexis Mojica RIVERA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3365
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    John Perrine HOLMAN, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2787
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Arthur MOBLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3301
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Eugene MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3248
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ronald G. MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida and Department of Corrections, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D18-3078
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Charrdonaye BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2229
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Chazelle REED, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2214
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ivan M. MANDEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-2116
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Sulayman NJIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1722
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    William T. WOODWARD, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
    Case No. 5D18-1166
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Unterrio JULIAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-651
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Daniel Lanorris ALLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-411
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Rafael TRINIDAD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-704
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    James STEPHENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-547
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Francisco Luis CINTRON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-324
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Andrew Ridge KING, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-183
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Afeez ALI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-46
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kamauri JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3877
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Alphanso E. HARRISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3847
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Robert A. JAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida and Florida Department of Corrections, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D18-3644
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 13, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Stephen MCDUFFIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3643
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Stephen Jude KANE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3523
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Walter E. PALMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3447
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    James Edward MCNAIR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-3405
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    S.T., Mother of J.G.T., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D19-0405
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 15, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Emily Kathleen DONDERIS a/k/a Emily K. Grajales, Appellant, v. Juan Carlos DONDERIS, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-1673
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 14, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Matthew D. PETITHOMME, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D18-35
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed May 7, 2019
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Robert GINDEL, Kevin Humphrey, Xioadan Song, Weijing Li, Patricia Jacobs, Craig Handwerker, John Woods, Michelle Charbonneau, Annie Brousseau, Claude Racine, Roland Skerget, Anne Smart, Anthony D'acunto, Gregg Lutz, Eric Nemeth, Judith Grasso, Lori Bryan, Brian Streicher, and Grace Mackey, Appellants, v. CENTEX HOMES, Centex Real Estate Corporation, 2728 Holding Corporation, Pulte Home Corporation, and Pulte Corporation, Appellees.
    No. 4D17-2149
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [April 3, 2019]
    Scott C. Harris of Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP, Raleigh, NC, for appellants.
    Luis E. Ordonez and Gabriel A. Alfonso of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Miami, John H. Dannecker, Derrick M. Valkenburg, and Jennifer P. Sommerville of Shutts & Bowen, LLP, Orlando, and Jason B. Gonzalez of Shutts & Bowen, LLP, Tallahassee, for appellees.
    On Motion for Certification
   Per Curiam.

Appellees request this Court to certify that its decision is in direct conflict with a decision of another district court of appeal, and/or that the decision passes upon a question of great public importance. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v), we grant the motion for certification. Because reasonable people may differ on the interpretation of applicable Florida Supreme Court precedent as it applies to the interpretation of sections 95.11(3)(c) and 558.004, Florida Statutes (2014), we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance:

DOES COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 558.004(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (2014) CONSTITUTE THE COMMENCEMENT OF A CIVIL ACTION OR PROCEEDING SUFFICIENT TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF REPOSE SET FORTH IN SECTION 95.11(3)(C), FLORIDA STATUTES (2014)?

Fernandez and Scales, Associate Judges, and Suarez, Senior Associate Judge, concur.


author: Gross, J.

text:
    Nico Vincenzo GALLO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D18-1236
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [April 10, 2019]
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Claire V. Madill, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
    ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
   Gross, J.

We grant appellant's motion for written opinion but deny his motion for rehearing and to certify conflict or a question of public importance. We affirm the conviction and sentence. We write to address several of appellant's arguments regarding the sentence imposed by the circuit court.

The Crime

The victims in this disturbing case were a woman and her son. The woman was at home, sleeping in her bedroom, when she heard someone trying to enter through the front door. She called her son as she went to the living room. There, she saw a broken top window panel. She pulled back the drapes and saw appellant.

Appellant said, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry ... I'm going to die today." Appellant then "cannonballed" through the bottom window panel into her living room and began to fight with the son as he approached to protect his mother. The son tried to hold appellant down, but he was overpowered. The woman hit appellant on the head with a baseball bat several times. The son continued to wrestle appellant, trying to restrain him. Appellant wrapped his legs around the son's neck. The woman called 911-she said that she was bleeding and that her son was "opened up." She said that appellant was trying to take the bat from her. She said, "He's just going crazy, he's attacking."

A deputy arrived at the house and saw "blood everywhere." The woman's son was on top of appellant. The deputy secured appellant in wrist restraints, but when asked for his name, appellant "swept [the deputy's] legs out from underneath him" and kicked the back of the deputy's leg. While another officer was retrieving leg restraints, appellant grabbed the first deputy's pants and "shredded 'em." After appellant was secured with leg restraints, his mood alternated between periods of calm and aggression. While calm, he told the officers his name and that he took drugs. When he was aggressive, "he was trying to drink the blood that was pooling from his own head on the floor" and "appeared [to be] having a conversation with Satan."

At a sentencing hearing, the woman described the incident after appellant broke into the living room:

[Appellant] started screaming kill me, kill me, I'm going to die tonight. My son kept telling him just calm down, stop, I'm not going to hurt you, just hold still. I had bolted past to grab my phone and I grabbed a baseball bat that I kept next to my bed, I came out and I, my fear was running everywhere, my biggest fear was that I was going to accidentally hit my son instead and I didn't wanna do that, I thought I might kill my son. I called 9-1-1, he would not hold still, my son kept wrestling with him and I started hitting him with the bat. I was in fear of my life, I was in fear of my son's life. This, they, they had, there, there was like super human strength, the[y] just wrestled and rolled around, the furniture moved, it's a tile floor, the[ ] furniture moved, they were on the sofa, the ottoman, the loveseat, the chair um, he would not stop. At one point he attempted to grab the baseball bat from me, I was able to keep that away from him and every time I could I, I took a swing. I was, like I said, I was fighting for our lives.

After appellant was restrained, the woman's arm was bleeding from the broken glass. She was taken to the hospital and received stitches. She lost the window, rugs, blinds, and furniture. She had to have a hazmat crew come in to clean up the blood. She was "financially destroyed because of the debt."

The day after the incident, appellant told a detective that "he ha[d] taken an assortment of narcotics ... cannabis, acid, Methylone," and that he "started hearing voices in his head, so he ran out of his house down the street and ... the voices told him that he needed to go inside [the victims'] house."

Appellant was charged with burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery, a first degree felony "punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment." § 810.02(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2017). He was also charged with battery on a law enforcement officer, criminal mischief ($ 1,000 or more) and resisting an officer with violence, all third degree felonies carrying a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. See §§ 784.07(2)(b), 806.13(1)(b) 3, 843.01, Fla. Stat. (2017).

The Plea Bargain

On the life felony burglary charge, appellant pleaded no contest to the lesser-included offense of trespass, which in most instances is a misdemeanor. § 810.08, Fla. Stat. (2017). Appellant also pleaded no contest to the remaining three charges. The plea was open, with the proviso that the State would reduce the burglary charge to a trespass and that appellant would pay $ 21,279.89 in restitution to the woman and her son, various medical facilities, and Martin County Fire and Rescue. Appellant scored thirty-three points on his CPC scoresheet. As the court explained, this score made sentencing "a completely wide open situation. Anywhere from time served ... to the maximum, which now becomes 15 years in prison," plus the misdemeanor.

The Sentencing Hearing

During the sentencing portion of the hearing, two responding officers testified about the chaos at the crime scene and appellant's bizarre behavior. A detective described his interaction with appellant on the day after the incident. The State played the woman's frantic 911 call. The son described his struggle with appellant and how he "knew [he] was in a little bit of trouble" when appellant wrapped his legs around the son's neck. Finally, the woman told her story of the crime, much of which is quoted above.

On appellant's behalf, his uncle said he was a "kind, loving, happy kid" who was a hard worker and for whom this incident in his life was "just an anomaly." Appellant's father also said that appellant was a "hard worker" who understood that he "took this false step" and "made a mistake." The father said that appellant "want[s] to make this right. He does want to make restitution and he does wanna move on with his life" and "use this as a learning experience and hopefully help someone else down the road." Appellant expressed his remorse-"I wish I could turn back the clock so many times ... I think about this every single day of my life." He promised the court to "make right on this" no matter what it took.

The State recommended ten years in prison as a sentence, or in the alternative, five years in prison, followed by ten years of probation with no chance of early termination. Appellant's counsel advocated for twenty-four months in prison, followed by any probation sentence the court found appropriate.

In a considered sentencing pronouncement, the trial judge spoke at length about what was on his mind regarding an appropriate sentence. The judge expressed sympathy for appellant's family, which "didn't create this situation," and for the victims, who endured a nightmare.

The judge then focused on the seriousness of appellant's crimes, that citizens have the right to "live free and safe," "without fear that some young person is [ ] gonna choose to take a drug that makes them psychotically violent with super human strength, break into their home and threaten their lives." The trial court stated:

It is extremely significant to note that but for serendipity, which means accident ... [that] [h]uman life was not taken in this case, the life of the defendant, which the State has argued completely justifiably could've been taken the minute he busted through the ... window or thank God the lives of the 2 people who spoke here as the potential victims in the case. I say potential victims because their lives were not taken and that is just serendipity, period, that they are alive today, period. It was the defendant's bad choice and the grave situation that he created that is of extremely and of an extremely serious nature that makes this case extremely significant warranting serious punishment for the reasons I've stated already.
* * *
The State's recommendation may seem harsh to some, but not to the Court because it reflects the danger to the community presented to the victims and to the community which came about by a choice of the defendant to take drugs that any person with common sense should know could bring that person taking such a drug to a courtroom here today to be sentenced by me such as you Mister Gallo.

The judge felt that the seriousness of appellant's crimes elevated general deterrence-the need to deter others-to the most important sentencing factor in the case.

The criminal justice system is created to deter people from doing things that threaten[ ] the li[ves] of other people, period. The sentencing concern of deterrence, the need to deter others so inclined to take such drugs is so powerful in this case it overwhelms other factors such as the love of the family of the defendant, which I have sympathy for. Their belief in him despite his unwise, dangerous action in this case. The need for deterrence overwhelms the consideration that the defendant has no prior criminal history of conviction, which is reflected on his score sheet. The need for deterrence overwhelms any remorse or apology, that is to any reasonable person, including me, in the statement I'm sorry I took drugs that turned me into a violent psychopath and that I broke into your home and put your life in fear of, of death does not ring loudly to me or to the community. To the people of this community, the statements of the defendant's family that he's a kind, happy, loving, nice person, hard worker, positive influence on children, given the facts of this case do not ring loudly to them, meaning they are not powerful mitigating factors, nor should they be in this case for the reasons I have stated.
* * *
The sentence to be imposed will not involve probation because the main purpose of this sentence is deterrence. Every young person who would make such a choice should hear and heed the sentence imposed today. Every parent that hears of this sentence should tell their adolescent children of this sentence. This should be done so that no young person makes the choice to take drugs that any person would reasonably know would make them psychotically violent.

The judge adjudicated appellant guilty of all crimes to which he pleaded no contest. On the misdemeanor trespass charge, he sentenced appellant to 300 days in jail. For each of the three felonies, he sentenced appellant to five years in prison, with one term running consecutively to the other two, for a total of ten years in prison. This sentence was less than the fifteen-year sentence that the court might have lawfully imposed for three third degree felonies.

Discussion

Appellant complains because the circuit judge "relied entirely on general deterrence-to the exclusion of all other factors-to justify" the sentence imposed. This is a mischaracterization of the sentencing process, where the record demonstrates that the judge relied on at least four sentencing considerations that have long been part of Anglo-American criminal law.

First, the judge focused on the egregious facts of this case and decided that appellant's conduct was deserving of punishment; under retribution theory, it is "just that one who has caused harm to others should himself suffer for it." WAYNE R. LAFAVE & AUSTIN W. SCOTT , JR. , HANDBOOK ON CRIMINAL LAW (1972), § 5. Also, "it is claimed that retributive punishment is needed to maintain respect for the law and to suppress acts of private vengeance." Id. This case cannot be separated from the victims' blamelessness and the trauma they endured; they were in the privacy of their home when, in the dark of night, appellant crashed through a window and physically attacked them.

Second, the judge engaged in prevention, which "aims to deter the criminal himself (rather than to deter others) from committing further crimes, by giving him an unpleasant experience he will not want to endure again." Id. Appellant blames his predicament on the illegal drugs he ingested. Relapse is not uncommon among users of illicit drugs, which may lead to recidivism. The sentence here incentivized appellant not to relapse.

Third, the sentence imposed furthered the goal of incapacitation, where the notion is "that society may protect itself from persons deemed dangerous because of their past criminal conduct by isolating these persons from society." Id.

Finally, as described by the judge, the sentence sought to implement the policy of general deterrence which seeks to deter others from taking illicit drugs that might turn them into "violent psychopath[s]." This court has recognized that general deterrence is a proper sentencing factor in Florida:

Deterrence, along with retribution, is one of "the traditional aims of punishment." "The premise is that by confining criminal offenders in a facility where they are isolated from the rest of society, a condition that most people presumably find undesirable, they and others will be deterred from committing additional criminal offenses." This view of deterrence as a legitimate consideration in sentencing has been recognized in Florida both before and since the adoption of the [Criminal Punishment Code].

Charles v. State , 204 So.3d 63, 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (internal citations omitted). In Chambers v. State , 217 So.3d 210, 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), we relied on Charles to conclude that "where a sentence comports with the sentencing guidelines, a trial court's consideration of deterrence as a sentencing factor does not violate a defendant's due process rights." We explained that in Charles we held that

"it is not impermissible for a sentence to be used as a means of general deterrence." There, we explained that "deterrence, both general ('send a message to the community') and specific (send a message to the individual being sentenced), is not merely one factor amidst the sea of relevant sentencing considerations; it is a key component of punishment itself-the 'primary purpose' of sentencing under the CPC [Criminal Punishment Code]."

Chambers , 217 So.3d at 212 (alterations in original) (quoting Charles , 204 So.3d at 66-67 ); see also Andrews v. State , 207 So.3d 889, 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). The trial judge's discussion of general deterrence in this case fits comfortably within the Charles/Chambers recognition of general deterrence as a valid sentencing consideration.

As appellant notes in his brief, general deterrence as a sentencing tool is not without its critics. But there is anecdotal support of its beneficial effect-enforcement of DUI laws has contributed to the rise of ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft and a concomitant decline in DUI arrests. See Charles Rabin, DUI arrests in South Florida plummet. Uber, Lyft, millennials among the reasons why, MIAMI HERALD , (July 31, 2018) https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article215758380.html. Some courts have questioned the deterrent effect of excessively long sentences. See , e.g. , U.S. v. Presley , 790 F.3d 699, 701-02 (7th Cir. 2015) (involving 36.67-year sentence). Appellant's ten-year sentence does not approach those long sentences that have drawn the ire of commentators.

Appellant also argues that his sentence is "unconstitutionally disproportionate." He compares himself to other felons who had similar CPC scores. Presumably, these similar scores were acquired by those convicted of third degree felonies. This is an invalid comparison that separates the sentence from the facts of the case.

In his reply brief, appellant questions whether the State would have been able to prove that he had the requisite intent to commit a burglary. However, the plea bargain here did not preclude the trial judge from examining all the facts of the case in arriving at an appropriate sentence.

Only because of the work of appellant's trial counsel and the generosity of the prosecutor in reducing the first degree felony charge was appellant offered the chance to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and three third degree felonies instead of a felony carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The victims were not out for blood-the woman said she did not want the crime to "define the rest of [appellant's] life" or hers. The trial judge compassionately accepted the plea and sentenced appellant to two-thirds of the maximum sentence. The length of the sentence imposed here does not approach any conceivable constitutional limitation.

Affirmed .

Conner and Forst, JJ., concur.


text:
    Jorge GONZALEZ-BARRERA and Abniel Garcia, Appellants, v. MAJORCA TOWERS CONDOMINIUM, INC., Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1670
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 6, 2019
    W. Sam Holland, for appellants.
    Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., and Lilliana M. Farinas-Sabogal, Coral Gables, for appellee.
    Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Jorge Gonzalez-Barrera ("Gonzalez-Barrera") and Abniel Garcia ("Garcia") appeal a final judgment awarding permanent injunctive relief to Majorca Towers Condominium, Inc. ("the Association") in an action to remove Garcia from one of two condominium units owned by Gonzalez-Barrera.

We affirm that portion of the final judgment prohibiting Garcia, absent Association approval, from residing in one of Gonzalez-Barrera's two units while Gonzalez-Barrera resides in the other unit. However, we reverse that portion of the final judgment prohibiting Garcia, absent Association approval, from residing in the same unit with Gonzalez-Barrera, as such a claim was never pleaded, nor such relief sought, in the operative complaint. Further, even if (as the Association contends) such a claim had been pleaded, the trial court erred in granting such relief. Under the plain language of the Declaration of Condominium, Association approval was not required for Garcia to reside in the same unit with, and as a guest of, Gonzalez-Barrera.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.

      We reject the Association's argument that affirmance is compelled by the "law of the case" doctrine. Although it is true that this court previously affirmed the temporary injunction entered by the trial court, see Gonzalez-Barrera v. Majorca Towers Condo., Inc., 197 So.3d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (mem.), that per curiam affirmance cited to Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1979), which compelled affirmance in the absence of a transcript of the hearing on the motion for temporary injunction. Further, and as this court held in Ladner v. Plaza del Prado Condo. Ass'n, 423 So.2d 927, 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) :
      The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until a final hearing when full relief may be granted. A preliminary injunction does not decide the merits of the case unless (1) the hearing is specially set for that purpose, (2) the parties have had a full opportunity to present their cases, and a denial of a preliminary injunction or reversal of an order granting same does not preclude the granting of a permanent injunction at the conclusion of a full hearing. Because a party is not required to prove his case in full at a preliminary injunction hearing, the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the court at that hearing are not binding at the trial on the merits. It follows necessarily that any expression on the merits of the case by an appellate court reviewing an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction, where review is based on a record made at a less-than-full hearing, will not be binding at trial on the merits.
      (Internal citations and footnotes omitted). See also Klak v. Eagles' Reserve Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc., 862 So.2d 947 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ; Belair v. City of Treasure Island, 611 So.2d 1285, 1289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding: "The fact that this court affirmed the trial court's previous order granting a temporary injunction does not prohibit an appeal on the order granting a permanent injunction involving the same facts").


author: HENDON, J.

text:
    ULTRA AVIATION SERVICES, INC., Appellant, v. Lisvan L. Cruz CLEMENTE and Miami-Dade County, Appellees.
    No. 3D18-1569
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 13, 2019.
    Holland & Knight LLP, and Miguel De Grandy, and Daniel P. Hanlon, for appellant.
    Fairlaw Firm, and Brian H. Pollock ; Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A., and Elizabeth Estrada and Ronald D. Rodman ; Beckham & Beckham, P.A. and Pamela Beckham, for appellee Lisvan L. Cruz Clemente.
    Abigail Price-Williams, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and David M. Murray, Cynji A. Lee, and Altanese Phenelus, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellee Miami-Dade County.
    Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER and HENDON, JJ.
   HENDON, J.

Ultra Aviation Services, Inc. ["Ultra"] appeals from the circuit court's order granting Miami-Dade County's motion for summary judgment on Counts I and II of the County's third-party complaint, and denying Ultra's motion for summary judgment. We reverse.

Ultra is a Florida corporation that provides a variety of general aeronautical and passenger services to private air carriers operating at Miami International Airport ["MIA"], which is property of Miami-Dade County [the "County"]. Lizvan Cruz Clemente ["Cruz"] was a part-time employee of Ultra. In the underlying proceedings, Cruz brought suit against Ultra alleging that Ultra had unlawfully retaliated against him by reducing his hours and threatening him with termination after he complained to Ultra and the County that Ultra purportedly violated the County's Living Wage Ordinance ["LWO"], codified in section 2-8.9 of the Miami-Dade Code of Ordinances. After Ultra moved to dismiss Cruz's complaint on the grounds that the LWO was preempted by section 218.077, Florida Statutes (2015), and the LWO's health plan requirements were no longer valid, the County was allowed to intervene as an indispensable party to enforce the LWO against Ultra.

The County asserted four causes of action in its third-party complaint against Ultra; the only two counts that concern this appeal are Counts I and II. Specifically, the County asked the trial court to declare that the LWO was not preempted by section 218.077, and that the Florida Legislature's repeal of section 627.6699(12)(a) did not invalidate the health plan requirements under the LWO. Ultra and the County filed cross-motions for summary judgment as to these counts, and the trial court granted summary judgment to the County.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The trial court's final summary judgment is based on interpretation of section 218.077 and the LWO, and thus our standard of review is de novo. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. v. Meeks, 863 So.2d 287, 289 (Fla. 2003) ("Statutory interpretation is a question of law subject to de novo review."); Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So.2d 1071, 1074 (Fla. 2001) (the "standard of review governing a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment posing a pure question of law is de novo."); see also Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000).

ANALYSIS

Ultra is identified by the County as a General Aeronautical Services Permittee ["GASP"]. The County provides GASPs such as Ultra with a non-exclusive right to access MIA to conduct company business in exchange for a fee in the amount of 7% of its monthly gross revenues derived from Ultra's provision of services to private airlines at MIA. Ultra's provision of services to the private airlines are governed by separate service contracts with those airlines, contracts to which the County is not a party or third party beneficiary.

Ultra's February 2016 permit agreement with the County contains a provision requiring Ultra to abide by the LWO. There is no dispute that Ultra is a GASP as defined by subsection 2-8.9(E)(3) of the LWO. Ultra argues, however, and we agree, that section 218.077 prohibits local governments from imposing minimum wage requirements exceeding federal or state minimum wage laws. The statute provides limited exceptions that allow a political subdivision such as the County to impose minimum wage requirements higher than state or federal minimum wage. The County asserts that Ultra falls under section 218.077(3)(a) 2., the statutory exception for "the employees of an employer contracting to provide goods or services for the political subdivision," and therefore allows the County to impose its own minimum wage requirements on Ultra via the permit agreement, free from the general wage prohibition of section 218.077(2). We disagree.

This Court must begin with the actual language used in the statute because legislative intent is determined primarily from the statute's text. See Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Phillips, 126 So.3d 186, 190 (Fla. 2013) ; see also Gomez v. Vill. of Pinecrest, 41 So.3d 180, 185 (Fla. 2010). Additionally, an exception to a statutory provision is usually strictly construed against the one who attempts to take advantage of the exception. See State v. Nourse, 340 So.2d 966, 969 (Fla. 3d DCA. 1976). It is clear from the record on appeal that Ultra is not a provider of "goods or services" to the County pursuant to subsection (3) and its permit agreement with the County. As a permittee, Ultra is allowed to conduct its business on County property for an access fee; Ultra provides its services not to the County, but to private airlines via separate written private contracts with commercial airlines, contracts to which the County is not a party. To be sure, the GASP permit states that "the rights granted by the Permit are exclusively limited to the Permittee's right and privilege to do business at the Airport." Ultra does not provide either goods or services to the County itself.

In the lower court, the County argued that Ultra is in a class of contractors that provides services to its clients at MIA, that they in essence also provide services "for the benefit of or on behalf of" Miami-Dade County. In support of its position, the County relies upon the definitional provision of section 218.077(1)(c). We acknowledge that the County benefits from Ultra's business in a derivative or collateral sense, in that the provision of services by Ultra to private air carriers at MIA ensures that MIA continues to bring air traffic and related businesses to the area. That is not, however, a direct "provision of goods and services" to the County, and we decline to so hold. If the legislature had intended permit arrangements, such as the one between the County and GASPs, to be exempt from the prohibition of section 218.077, it would have carved out that exception with plain language similar to that included in the County's LWO. See Nourse, 340 So.2d at 969.

Similarly, we reject the County's contention that Ultra's lease of property at MIA is a sufficient contractual basis for enforcing the LWO against Ultra. The lease does not fall within section 218.077's "under the terms of a contract" exception because that lease contract must be related to provision of goods and services to the County. § 218.077(3)(a) 2., Fla. Stat. (2018). As we have previously concluded, Ultra does not by contract or otherwise provide "goods or services" to the County in order for that statutory exception to apply.

Because Ultra does not fall within any of section 218.077's provisions, we therefore reverse the order granting final summary judgment on Counts I and II of Miami-Dade County's third party complaint, and remand to enter final summary judgment for Ultra on those counts.

Reversed and remanded.

      The circuit court ultimately also entered a final judgment in favor of Miami-Dade County. We denied Cruz's motion to dismiss Ultra's appeal as premature. Ultra Aviation Servs, Inc. v. Clemente, 262 So. 3d 830, 2018 WL 6335834 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 5, 2018) ("Because the trial court's order disposes of all claims involving the County, we have jurisdiction to review the partial final judgment pursuant to rule 9.110(k).").

      The LWO mandates that contractors and subcontractors of County service contracts should pay their employees nothing less than minimum wage. Under the LWO, a covered employer has two options regarding the wages it pays employees. It can either (1) decline to provide health insurance but pay a higher wage, or (2) it can provide health insurance and pay a lower hourly wage, provided that the health insurance plan meets certain statutory requirements under section 627.6699(12)(a), Florida Statutes. According to Cruz's complaint, Ultra began to provide its part-time employees with health insurance that did not comply with the LWO.

      The operative provision of the County LWO for County service contracts and County employees, section 2-8.9(E), provides the definition of a service contractor:
      (E) Service contractor is any individual, business entity, corporation (whether for profit or not for profit), partnership, limited liability company, joint venture, or similar business that is conducting business in Miami-Dade County or any immediately adjoining county and meets the following criteria:
      (1) The service contractor is paid in whole or part from one (1) or more of the County's general fund, capital project funds, special revenue funds, or any other funds either directly or indirectly, whether by competitive bid process, informal bids, requests for proposals, some form of solicitation, negotiation, or agreement, or any other decision to enter into a contract;
      (2) The service contractor is engaged in the business of, or part of, a contract to provide, a subcontractor to provide, or similarly situated to provide, covered services, either directly or indirectly for the benefit of the County; or
      (3) The service contractor is a General Aeronautical Service Permittee (GASP) or otherwise provides any of the Covered Services as defined herein at any Miami-Dade County Aviation Department facility including Miami International Airport pursuant to a permit, lease agreement or otherwise.

      Section 218.077(2) of the Florida Statutes is a preemption statute that expressly prohibits political subdivisions of the state from establishing a minimum wage contrary to state or federal wage requirements. That statute provides, in pertinent part:
      (2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), a political subdivision may not establish, mandate, or otherwise require an employer to pay a minimum wage, other than a state or federal minimum wage, to apply a state or federal minimum wage to wages exempt from a state or federal minimum wage, or to provide employment benefits not otherwise required by state or federal law.
      Article VIII, section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution authorizes the Florida Legislature to preempt municipal powers. Masone v. City of Aventura, 147 So.3d 492, 495 (Fla. 2014) ("[M]unicipal ordinances must yield to state statutes.").

      Section 218.077, Fla. Stat. (2018) provides,
      (3) This section does not:
      (a) Limit the authority of a political subdivision to establish a minimum wage other than a state or federal minimum wage or to provide employment benefits not otherwise required under state or federal law:
      1. For the employees of the political subdivision;
      2. For the employees of an employer contracting to provide goods or services for the political subdivision, or for the employees of a subcontractor of such an employer, under the terms of a contract with the political subdivision; ... (emphasis added).

      Section 218.077(1)(c) reads:
      (c) "Employer contracting to provide goods or services for the political subdivision" means a person contracting with the political subdivision to provide goods or services to, for the benefit of, or on behalf of, the political subdivision in exchange for valuable consideration, and includes a person leasing or subleasing real property owned by the political subdivision.

      We find the decision in Amerijet International, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County, Fla., 627 F. App'x 744 (11th Cir. 2015), to be inapplicable to the instant facts.


text:
    Peter OBERMEYER, Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK, etc., Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1637
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 20, 2019
    Gregg Horowitz (Sarasota), for appellant.
    DeLuca Law Group, PLLC, and Shawn Taylor (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.
    Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Peter Obermeyer, who successfully obtained the dismissal of the foreclosure action filed against him by the Bank of New York, appeals the trial court's final judgment denying attorney's fees and costs for litigating the amount of attorney's fees. Based on our longstanding precedent, we affirm. N. Dade Church of God, Inc. v. JM Statewide, Inc., 851 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) ("It is settled that in litigating over attorney's fees, a litigant may claim fees where entitlement is the issue, but may not claim attorney's fees incurred in litigating the amount of attorney's fees."). See generally State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So.2d 830, 833 (Fla. 1993) ("fees may be awarded for litigating the issue of entitlement to attorney's fees but not the amount of attorney's fees"). But see Waverly at Las Olas Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Waverly Las Olas, LLC, 88 So.3d 386, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (finding certain contractual language "broad enough to encompass fees incurred in litigating the amount of fees").

Affirmed.


text:
    MUNILLA CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a MCM, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, Appellants, v. SOUTHEASTERN ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, INC., and Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Appellees.
    No. 3D17-2111
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed February 13, 2019
    Taylor Espino Vega & Touron, P.A., and Alejandro Espino, and Vanessa A. Van Cleaf, for appellants.
    Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A., and Joseph W. Lawrence II, Michael A. Piscitelli, Robert L. Frye, and Steven K. Johnson (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellees.
    Before SALTER, FERNANDEZ , and LINDSEY, JJ.

      Judge Fernandez did not participate in oral argument

   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Witt v. La Gorce Country Club, Inc., 35 So.3d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ("The trial resolution judge's findings of fact are not reviewable on appeal." (citing § 44.104(11), Fla. Stat. (2008) ("Factual findings determined in the voluntary trial are not subject to appeal.") ) ).