Background
Deadrick Johnson, the appellant, filed an appeal with the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, challenging a decision of the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for St. Lucie County. The lower tribunal case number is 562020CF002538AXXXXX, and the circuit judge identified on the face of the appellate decision is Michael J. Linn. The State of Florida appeared as appellee in the matter. The appellate docket number assigned by the Fourth District is 4D2025-1138.
The public record released by the court consists of a single-page per curiam disposition. It does not set forth the underlying criminal charges, the procedural history of the trial court proceedings, the evidence presented, the sentence imposed, or the specific assignments of error raised on appeal. The document identifies the parties, the court below, the attorneys of record, and the date of decision, but it contains no narrative statement of facts and no discussion of the legal issues that may have been briefed.
Counsel for appellant Deadrick Johnson is listed as Ryan Edward McFarland of the law firm Kent & McFarland, located in Jacksonville. Counsel for appellee State of Florida is listed as James Uthmeier, Attorney General, located in Tallahassee, and Mary Elizabeth Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, located in West Palm Beach. The decision is dated November 5, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam decision stating, in its entirety, “Affirmed.” The concurrence line reads: “MAY, SHEPHERD and SHAW, JJ., concur.” No judge is identified as the author of a written opinion, and no separate concurring or dissenting opinion appears in the public document. The court provided no explanation of its reasoning, no analysis of the record, and no citation to legal authority.
Because the disposition is a per curiam affirmance without opinion, the public document does not disclose whether the court reviewed legal questions de novo, factual findings for substantial evidence, or discretionary rulings for abuse of discretion. It does not indicate whether any issues were preserved, forfeited, or procedurally barred. The decision does not distinguish among multiple claims, patents, or theories, because no such distinctions appear on the face of the order. The affirmance is complete and unqualified as to the judgment or order appealed from, but the scope of the appellate review and the rationale for the result are not publicly available in this document.
The decision expressly states: “Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.” This limitation indicates that the appellate mandate will not issue, and the decision will not become final, until the court resolves any timely motion for rehearing that may be filed under the applicable Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Key Takeaways
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County, in a per curiam decision without written opinion.
- The public document identifies the parties, the lower court judge (Michael J. Linn), the lower tribunal case number (562020CF002538AXXXXX), and counsel for both sides, but it contains no statement of facts, no discussion of legal issues, and no reasoning.
- The concurrence line lists MAY, SHEPHERD and SHAW, JJ., but the decision is expressly labeled “PER CURIAM” and no individual judge is identified as authoring an opinion.
- The decision is not final until the court disposes of any timely-filed motion for rehearing.
Why It Matters
Per curiam affirmances without opinion are a common method of disposition in Florida’s district courts of appeal, but they provide no guidance to the bar or the public regarding the legal principles applied or the reasons for the result. For practitioners, such a decision confirms that the lower court’s judgment or order remains in effect, but it offers no precedent, no analysis of the standard of review, and no indication of how similar issues might be treated in future cases.
Because the document contains no reasoning, attorneys and litigants cannot determine from the public record whether the court addressed substantive constitutional claims, evidentiary rulings, sentencing issues, or procedural defaults. The affirmance resolves the appeal as between Deadrick Johnson and the State of Florida, but it does so without creating citable authority or clarifying the law. Parties considering further review, including a motion for rehearing or a petition for review to the Florida Supreme Court, must rely on the trial court record and their own briefing rather than on any appellate explanation.