Hicks v. State — First District affirms Leon County circuit court judgment

Case
John Hicks v. State of Florida
Court
Florida First District Court of Appeal
Date Decided
June 12, 2026
Docket No.
1D2025-0505
Topics
Criminal Appeal, Per Curiam Affirmance, Pro Se

Background

John Hicks, appearing pro se, appealed a judgment entered against him in the Circuit Court for Leon County, Florida, before Judge Stephen Everett. The State of Florida was represented by the Attorney General’s office through Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Hoffman.

The underlying record on appeal arose from Leon County. The opinion does not disclose the nature of the charges or the proceedings below, as the appellate court resolved the matter through a per curiam affirmance without written opinion.

The Court’s Holding

The First District Court of Appeal, in a per curiam opinion joined by Judges Bilbrey, Kelsey, and M.K. Thomas, affirmed the circuit court’s judgment without elaboration. The single-word disposition — “AFFIRMED” — is the entirety of the court’s ruling on the merits.

The decision is not yet final and remains subject to any timely and authorized motions for rehearing or certification under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

Key Takeaways

  • The First District affirmed the Leon County circuit court in a per curiam opinion with no written analysis.
  • Hicks represented himself on appeal; the State was represented by the Attorney General’s office.
  • The decision is not final pending any timely motions for rehearing under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

Why It Matters

Per curiam affirmances without written opinion are routine appellate dispositions in Florida and carry no precedential value under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330. They signal that the appellate panel found no reversible error warranting discussion, but they do not establish binding legal principles for future cases.

For practitioners, this decision is notable primarily as a final resolution of Hicks’s appeal. Because no legal reasoning is published, the opinion offers no guidance on the substantive or procedural issues that were raised below.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top