You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

DWRON KENYON ROBINSON vs STATE OF FLORIDA

Citation: Not availableDocket: 22-2550

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; September 19, 2023; Florida; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida reviewed case number 5D22-2550, where Dwron Kenyon Robinson appealed against the State of Florida following a decision from the Circuit Court for Marion County, presided over by Judge Lisa Herndon. Robinson was represented by Matthew J. Metz and Ali L. Hansen from the Public Defender's Office, while the State was represented by Attorney General Ashley Moody and Assistant Attorney General Stephen R. Putnam, Jr. On September 19, 2023, the court issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The decision is not final until the resolution of any timely motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331. Judges Makar, Jay, and Kilbane concurred with the affirmation.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Review Process

Application: The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed the decision from the Circuit Court for Marion County, ultimately affirming the lower court's ruling.

Reasoning: The Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida reviewed case number 5D22-2550, where Dwron Kenyon Robinson appealed against the State of Florida following a decision from the Circuit Court for Marion County.

Finality of Appellate Decisions

Application: The appellate decision is not considered final until the resolution of any timely post-decision motions under specific Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Reasoning: The decision is not final until the resolution of any timely motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

Unanimous Concurrence in Appellate Decisions

Application: All judges on the panel concurred with the affirmation of the lower court's decision.

Reasoning: Judges Makar, Jay, and Kilbane concurred with the affirmation.