Dickson v. State — affirmed the criminal judgment without a written explanation

Case
Desmond Daniel Dickson v. State of Florida
Court
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
Judge
Gross (Lawton Chiles, 1995); GERBER (appointment info not available)
Date Decided
July 23, 2026
Docket No.
4D2025-2982
Topics
Criminal Appeals; Per Curiam Affirmance; Florida Procedure
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Desmond Daniel Dickson appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County. Circuit Judge Thomas J. Coleman presided over the underlying case, docketed as No. 062024CF007209A88810.

The appellate opinion does not identify the charges, describe the facts, state the issues Dickson raised, or disclose the circuit court’s reasoning. The State of Florida made no appearance in the appeal.

The Court’s Holding

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. The court issued a per curiam decision consisting only of the word “Affirmed.”

Because the opinion provides no analysis, it does not explain why the judgment was affirmed or announce a legal rule addressing the merits. Judges Gross, Gerber, and Lott concurred.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fourth District affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.
  • The per curiam opinion contains no factual discussion or legal reasoning.
  • The decision was not final until disposition of any timely filed motion for rehearing.

Why It Matters

The ruling leaves the circuit court’s judgment in place, subject to the stated rehearing period. Its practical effect is case-specific because the appellate court did not explain its reasoning or articulate a broader legal principle.

✉️ 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Your email address will not be published.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