Creach v. State of Florida — Florida appellate court affirms lower court’s decision

Case
CLINTON E. CREACH, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Court
Florida Second District Court of Appeal
Judge
BLACK (Charlie Crist, 2010); ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM (appointment info not available)
Date Decided
July 17, 2026
Docket No.
2D2026-0981
Topics
Appellate Procedure, Pro Se, Affirmance
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Clinton E. Creach, proceeding without legal representation (pro se), appealed a decision from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The appeal was made under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2), which typically governs appeals related to post-conviction relief or other limited-scope reviews. Judge Michelle Sisco presided over the initial proceedings in the lower court.

The Court’s Holding

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal rendered a per curiam decision, meaning the ruling was issued by the court as a whole rather than being authored by a specific judge. The court’s judgment was a straightforward “Affirmed,” indicating that it upheld the decision of the lower Hillsborough County Circuit Court without providing a detailed explanation of its reasoning. The opinion noted that it was “subject to revision prior to official publication.”

Key Takeaways

  • A “per curiam affirmed” (PCA) decision typically signifies that the appellate court found no reversible error in the lower court’s ruling and that the legal issues presented were either straightforward or well-settled by existing precedent.
  • The appellant, Clinton E. Creach, proceeded pro se, highlighting the complexities and challenges individuals often face when navigating the appellate process without legal counsel.
  • The brevity of the opinion suggests that the appellate court did not consider the appeal to raise novel legal questions or require a detailed exposition of the law.

Why It Matters

This case serves as a routine illustration of appellate court operations, particularly concerning per curiam affirmances. For legal practitioners, it reinforces that appeals generally require clear demonstrations of legal error to warrant a reversal, and that routine appeals with no groundbreaking issues are often affirmed without extensive comment. For pro se litigants, the outcome underscores the significant hurdles involved in successfully challenging lower court decisions at the appellate level without the benefit of legal representation and specialized knowledge of appellate procedure.

✉️ 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