Copeland — Second District affirmed without a written explanation

Case
George Copeland v. State of Florida
Court
Florida Second District Court of Appeal
Judge
Khouzam; Black; Smith
Date Decided
September 23, 2026
Docket No.
2D2025-3293
Topics
Criminal Appeals; Summary Affirmance; Postconviction Review
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

George Copeland appealed a ruling of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, where Circuit Judge Christopher Michael LaBruzzo presided. The appeal proceeded under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2), which governs certain appeals from summary postconviction proceedings.

The Second District’s opinion does not describe Copeland’s underlying conviction, the relief he sought, the circuit court’s reasoning, or the arguments presented on appeal.

The Court’s Holding

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

The per curiam opinion provided no analysis or explanation for the affirmance. Judges Khouzam, Black, and Smith concurred.

Key Takeaways

  • The Second District affirmed the Pinellas County circuit court’s ruling.
  • The appeal was considered under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2).
  • The court issued a per curiam affirmance without stating its reasoning or addressing the merits in writing.

Why It Matters

The decision leaves the circuit court’s ruling in place but supplies no written reasoning for attorneys or lower courts to apply in other cases. Its practical significance is therefore limited to the disposition of Copeland’s appeal.

✉️ 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Your email address will not be published.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