Background
Deisis Duran appealed to the Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, with Laura Shaffer identified as the circuit judge. Jose Duran was the appellee. The lower tribunal number is 2017-DR-000553. The public order does not describe the underlying dispute, the proceedings in the circuit court, the arguments presented on appeal, or the specific ruling or rulings challenged.
The appellate court issued a per curiam order on November 6, 2026. The order states only “AFFIRMED.” and then cites three Florida Supreme Court decisions. It does not provide a narrative account of the case or separately explain how each cited decision applies to a particular appellate argument.
Neyza L. Guzman, of The Law Offices of Neyza L. Guzman in Orlando, appeared for the appellant. Carol B. Shannin and Nicholas A. Shannin, of Shannin Law Firm, P.A., in Orlando, appeared for the appellee.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District affirmed. The order first cites Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979), quoting its statement that, without a record of the trial proceedings, an appellate court cannot properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is unsupported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. The quoted passage also states that, without knowing the factual context, an appellate court cannot reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.
The order next cites Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 1252, 1278 (Fla. 2005), for the proposition that litigants have no right to have any particular judge hear their case. It then cites Tingle v. Dade County Board of County Commissioners, 245 So. 2d 76, 78 (Fla. 1971). The quoted Tingle passage explains that, although a judge should hesitate to undo the judge’s own work and should hesitate still more to undo another judge’s work, the judge has power to do so until final judgment and may therefore vacate or modify a predecessor’s interlocutory rulings or orders in the case.
TRAVER, C.J., and SMITH and PRATT, JJ., concurred. Because the order contains no findings or argument-by-argument discussion, the public document does not establish which cited principle corresponded to any specific issue raised by Duran. It also does not identify a particular interlocutory order, judicial reassignment, or evidentiary ruling beyond what appears in the quoted authorities.
Key Takeaways
- The Sixth District affirmed the circuit court’s disposition in a per curiam order.
- The order cites Applegate concerning the limits of appellate review without a record of the trial proceedings.
- It cites Rodriguez for the rule that litigants have no right to a particular judge.
- It cites Tingle concerning a successor judge’s authority, before final judgment, to vacate or modify a predecessor’s interlocutory rulings or orders.
Why It Matters
The order collects three principles relevant to appellate litigation and trial-court procedure: the importance of an adequate trial record, the absence of a litigant’s right to choose a particular judge, and the authority to revisit interlocutory rulings before final judgment. Those are the propositions expressed in the cited passages; the order itself does not supply a broader factual application.
Readers should not treat the citations as a detailed explanation of the underlying dispute. The public reasoning is limited to the quoted authorities, and the order does not disclose the appellant’s specific claims or the evidence below. The document also states that it is not final until the time expires to file a motion for rehearing and, if a timely motion is filed, until its disposition.