Background
TaheshaNoel Knight petitioned for an injunction for protection against stalking by her former employer, Matthew Glen Kepp. After a hearing, the Circuit Court for Duval County denied the petition.
Six days later, Knight filed a verified motion to disqualify the presiding trial judge based on comments he had made during the hearing. Knight filed her notice of appeal on June 12, 2025, before the trial court denied the disqualification motion on June 18, 2025. After the Fifth District initially affirmed without opinion, Knight timely sought rehearing and a written opinion.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District denied rehearing but granted Knight’s request for a written opinion. It affirmed the denial of the stalking injunction because the evidence in the appellate record was sufficient to sustain the trial court’s decision.
The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the order denying disqualification because that order was entered after Knight filed her notice of appeal. Although Knight later filed an amended notice to add a required certificate of service, she expressly did so only for that purpose and did not expand the matter appealed to include the disqualification order. The court therefore expressed no opinion on the grounds for disqualification or the trial court’s ruling on them.
Key Takeaways
- A stalking-injunction denial will be affirmed when the record contains sufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s decision.
- A notice of appeal filed before a later order is rendered does not invoke appellate jurisdiction over that later order.
- An amended notice filed solely to correct a certificate-of-service defect does not bring an additional order within the scope of the appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision highlights a jurisdictional trap for appellate litigants: when a trial court enters an appealable order after the original notice of appeal, the appellant must properly invoke appellate jurisdiction over that order, ordinarily by identifying it in an amended notice of appeal.
It also illustrates that obtaining a written opinion after a per curiam affirmance does not necessarily alter the result. Here, the written opinion clarified both the evidentiary basis for affirmance and the jurisdictional reason the disqualification ruling could not be reviewed.