Background
This document is a one-page appellate order in Anthony Puckett v. State of Florida, No. 4D2025-3750. The District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, issued it on November 5, 2026. The caption identifies Anthony Puckett as the appellant and the State of Florida as the appellee. It states that the matter is an appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County. The lower-tribunal information identifies Sherri L. Collins as Judge and gives L.T. Case No. 501995CF000576AXXXMB.
The appearance section states that Anthony Puckett, West Palm Beach, appeared pro se. It separately states, “No appearance required for appellee.” The order does not explain that statement or describe any briefing, response, oral argument, or other appellate activity. Accordingly, the document establishes the stated appearance information but does not supply a basis for describing why the appellee’s appearance was not required.
Beyond the appeal and lower-tribunal caption information, the order provides no procedural history. It does not identify the underlying proceedings, the issues presented on appeal, the arguments made by either party, or the judgment or order being reviewed in descriptive terms. The lower-tribunal case number is reproduced above, but the order does not explain its significance or use it to describe the nature of the case. No factual background, offense description, conviction details, sentence, or claim-specific dispute is stated.
The Court’s Holding
The court’s express disposition is a per curiam decision stating, “Affirmed.” The order names GERBER, C.J., KLINGENSMITH and LOTT, JJ., as concurring. Because the official order expressly uses “PER CURIAM” and contains no Before or panel line, the metadata identifies the judge as Per Curiam rather than treating the concurrence line as a separate panel designation.
No public reasoning accompanies the affirmance. The order contains no discussion of the merits, no identification of the issues resolved, and no explanation of the standard of review. It cites no rule, statute, precedent, or other legal authority. In particular, the document does not attribute the decision to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or any similar authority. It also does not explain whether any issue was reviewed de novo, reviewed for substantial evidence, forfeited, or resolved on another procedural basis.
The affirmance therefore should be described only at the level the document supports: the Fourth District affirmed in this appeal. The order does not define a narrower claim-specific holding, establish the scope of the affirmance beyond that stated disposition, or supply reasoning that could be generalized to other cases. It would be unsupported to infer the underlying conviction, the nature of any offense, the arguments rejected, or the practical consequences of the decision from the docket or lower-tribunal case number.
Key Takeaways
- The Fourth District issued a per curiam affirmance in Anthony Puckett v. State of Florida, No. 4D2025-3750, on November 5, 2026.
- The appeal came from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; the caption lists Sherri L. Collins as Judge and L.T. Case No. 501995CF000576AXXXMB.
- Anthony Puckett, West Palm Beach, appeared pro se, and the order states that no appearance was required for the appellee, without explaining why.
- GERBER, C.J., KLINGENSMITH and LOTT, JJ., concur. The order supplies no reasoning, issue analysis, factual findings, legal citations, or claim-specific rationale.
- The document expressly states: “Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.”
Why It Matters
For attorneys, the order’s principal value is its express record of the disposition and the limited information accompanying it. It confirms the parties, appellate docket, decision date, lower-tribunal caption, appearance statements, per curiam affirmance, concurrence line, and finality notation. It does not provide a legal rationale that can accurately be presented as a merits analysis or as authority for a broader procedural rule.
Readers should not treat the absence of published reasoning as evidence of a particular ground for affirmance. The document does not say that the appeal lacked merit, that a particular issue was forfeited, or that any specific dispute concerning a 1995 felony case was resolved. Nor does it provide procedural advice or predictions about rehearing, further review, or enforcement. Its finality statement is quoted above without adding unstated consequences. This is consequently a source-bounded disposition summary: the outcome is clear, while the public reasoning and the factual and legal basis for that outcome are unavailable in the supplied order.