Background
Corey Michael Bivins is the appellant and the State of Florida is the appellee in Bivins v. State of Florida, No. 2D2026-0416. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, issued its decision on November 6, 2026. The opinion identifies the proceeding as an appeal from the County Court for Hillsborough County and names Frances M. Perrone as the judge below. The document does not identify the judgment, order, conviction, sentence, or other county court ruling being challenged.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Caroline Joan S. Picart, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, are listed as counsel for Bivins. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, is listed as counsel for the State. Those appearances establish the representation shown on the opinion, but the document does not describe any briefs, motions, hearings, or oral argument.
The original supplies no underlying factual narrative. It does not state the charges, describe an offense, recount a trial or plea, identify a sentence, or set out procedural history beyond the appeal’s source in the Hillsborough County Court. It also does not identify issues presented, arguments by either party, legal authorities, or standards of review. Accordingly, the public document establishes the parties, counsel, appellate court, docket number, date, lower court, and disposition, but not the factual or legal dispute that produced the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate disposition is stated in one word: “Affirmed.” The opinion is expressly labeled “PER CURIAM.” LaROSE, SLEET, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., concur. The document contains no separate majority analysis, concurrence explaining a legal position, or dissent. The affirmance is the complete substantive ruling shown in the supplied original.
No reasoning supporting affirmance is publicly stated in this opinion. The court does not identify an issue resolved, discuss evidence, construe a statute or rule, cite precedent, or explain why any appellant argument succeeded or failed. The decision therefore should not be characterized as a ruling on a particular constitutional, evidentiary, procedural, sentencing, or other legal issue. Nor does the document permit an inference that the court adopted a specific rationale, applied de novo review, conducted substantial-evidence review, found forfeiture, or relied on any other circumstance-specific procedural doctrine.
The opinion also carries the notice: “Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.” That notice concerns possible revision before official publication; it does not add reasoning or qualify the stated disposition with conditions not appearing in the text.
Key Takeaways
- The Second District affirmed in Corey Michael Bivins’s appeal from the County Court for Hillsborough County, with Frances M. Perrone identified as the judge below.
- The decision is per curiam, and LaROSE, SLEET, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., concur; the opinion provides no explanation for the affirmance.
- The document states no facts, charges, issues, party arguments, authorities, legal standards, or procedural basis beyond the appellate outcome, so no broader holding or rationale can responsibly be attributed to it.
Why It Matters
For attorneys tracking the docket, the opinion confirms the appellate outcome and the limited public record accompanying it. It establishes that the Second District affirmed on November 6, 2026, but it does not disclose the question presented or the court’s basis for deciding. Any account of the underlying dispute or the legal significance of the ruling would require materials outside this opinion, which are not supplied here.
The decision’s practical value in this summary is therefore confined to its verified disposition and procedural identifiers. It should not be presented as a reasoned precedent on an unstated issue, and the absence of analysis should not be filled by speculation about the county court proceedings or the parties’ positions.