Jordan v. State — Postconviction ruling affirmed without a written opinion

Background

Kenneth Jordan appealed from a ruling of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, where Judge Philip James Federico presided.

The appeal proceeded under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2), which governs certain appeals from postconviction proceedings. The appellate opinion does not identify Jordan’s claims, the underlying conviction, or the circuit court’s reasoning.

The Court’s Holding

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s ruling.

The per curiam opinion provided no explanation for the decision and established no stated rule of law. Judges Khouzam, Black, and Smith concurred.

Key Takeaways

• The Second District affirmed the circuit court’s ruling.
• The appeal was handled under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2).
• Because the court issued an unexplained per curiam affirmance, the opinion does not disclose the issues presented or the basis for affirmance.

Why It Matters

The decision leaves the circuit court’s ruling in place but offers no written analysis for attorneys or lower courts to apply in future cases.