Chisholm v. State — Fifth District affirmed without a written explanation

Case
Santini Antone Chisholm v. State of Florida
Court
Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal
Judge
JAY, C.J. (Ron DeSantis, 2023); WALLIS, J. (Rick Scott, 2013); EISNAUGLE, J. (Rick Scott, 2017)
Date Decided
September 8, 2026
Docket No.
5D2025-0881
Topics
Criminal Appeals; Per Curiam Affirmance
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Santini Antone Chisholm appealed from a decision of the Circuit Court for Marion County, where Judge Barbara Kissner presided. The Fifth District’s opinion identifies the lower-court case as 2021-CF-004811-A.

The appellate court provided no description of the charges, procedural history, arguments, or issues presented. Chisholm was represented by the Public Defender’s Office and also appeared pro se; the Florida Attorney General’s Office represented the State.

The Court’s Holding

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s decision in a per curiam opinion.

The court supplied no reasoning or discussion of the issues. Chief Judge Jay and Judges Wallis and Eisnaugle concurred.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fifth District affirmed the circuit court’s decision.
  • The disposition was per curiam and contained no explanation of the court’s reasoning.
  • The opinion does not identify the appellate issues or establish any articulated rule of law.

Why It Matters

The decision resolves Chisholm’s appeal in the State’s favor but offers no written analysis for attorneys to apply in other cases.

The opinion was designated nonfinal 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Your email address will not be published.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