Smith v. State — affirmed the county court’s judgment without a written explanation

Case
Marvin James Smith v. State of Florida
Court
Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal
Judge
JAY, C.J. (Ron DeSantis, 2023); Makar, J. (Ron DeSantis, 2023); Edwards, J. (Rick Scott, 2014)
Date Decided
October 29, 2026
Docket No.
5D2025-3858
Topics
Criminal Appeals; Per Curiam Affirmance
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Marvin James Smith appealed from the County Court for Marion County, where County Judge Lori Cotton presided. The appellate opinion identifies the lower-tribunal case as 2025-MM-003614-A.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal’s opinion does not describe the charge, the county court’s ruling, the facts, or the arguments presented on appeal.

The Court’s Holding

The Fifth District affirmed the county court’s judgment in a per curiam decision.

The court provided no reasoning, addressed no specific legal issue, and announced no rule of law. Chief Judge Jay and Judges Makar and Edwards concurred.

Key Takeaways

  • The county court’s judgment was affirmed.
  • The decision was issued per curiam by a three-judge panel.
  • The opinion contains no factual discussion or legal analysis.

Why It Matters

The ruling leaves the county court’s judgment intact but offers no written guidance on the merits of Smith’s appeal or on any broader legal question.

The opinion states that it is not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

✉️ 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Your email address will not be published.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