Goldring v. State — Florida appellate court affirmed without a written explanation

Case
Mark McKinley Goldring v. State of Florida
Court
Florida Second District Court of Appeal
Judge
Khouzam; Black; Smith
Date Decided
September 23, 2026
Docket No.
2D2025-1701
Topics
Criminal Appeals; Postconviction Review; Summary Affirmance
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Mark McKinley Goldring, proceeding without counsel, appealed from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, where Judge Lawrence Mark Lefler presided.

The appeal proceeded under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The opinion does not identify Goldring’s underlying claims, the circuit court’s reasoning, or the relief he sought.

The Court’s Holding

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

The court issued a one-word per curiam disposition—“Affirmed”—and provided no legal analysis or explanation. Judges Khouzam, Black, and Smith concurred.

Key Takeaways

  • The Second District left the circuit court’s ruling in place.
  • The decision was issued as a per curiam affirmance without a written rationale.
  • The opinion supplies no facts or reasoning from which to identify the specific basis for affirmance.

Why It Matters

The ruling resolves Goldring’s appeal in the State’s favor but does not announce or explain a rule of law. Because the court provided no reasoning, the opinion offers little guidance for attorneys beyond its disposition of this case.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top