Background
This is an outcome-only appellate order, not a reasoned merits opinion. The public document identifies the case as Kendrick Williams v. State of Florida, No. 4D2024-3261, in the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, and states that the decision was issued on November 5, 2026. It further states that the matter was an appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, that the lower-court judge was N. Hunter Davis, Judge, and that the lower-tribunal case number was L.T. Case No. 062016CF003710A88810. The order identifies Kendrick Williams as the appellant and the State of Florida as the appellee.
The opinion also lists appellate counsel. Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Ethan R. Goldberg, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, appeared for the appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sorraya M. Solages-Jones, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, appeared for the appellee. Beyond those caption, procedural, and representation details, the public order provides no factual narrative. It does not state the underlying offense, the trial proceedings, the sentence, the evidence, the issues raised on appeal, the standard of review, or any legal authorities.
Because the document contains only a per curiam affirmance, there is no public reasoning to summarize. A careful summary therefore must not supply facts, arguments, holdings, or rationales that the court did not publish. The only verified procedural posture is that the Fourth District reviewed an appeal from the identified Broward County circuit-court case and affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The court’s complete merits disposition is: “PER CURIAM. Affirmed.” The order then states: “MAY, SHEPHERD and SHAW, JJ., concur.” That is the full substantive holding available from the public document. The order does not explain why the lower court was affirmed, does not identify any claim-specific rationale, and does not distinguish among potential issues because no issues are described.
The document also includes a finality notation: “Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.” That language means only that the opinion is not final while a timely rehearing motion remains possible or pending under the court’s rules. The public order does not state whether a rehearing motion was filed, granted, denied, or otherwise resolved, and no inference about rehearing should be added.
Accordingly, the only verified legal effect is affirmance on appeal in this case. The order should not be characterized as adopting a particular legal theory, rejecting a particular argument, or announcing a broader rule. It is a concise outcome-only notice of affirmance.
Key Takeaways
- The Fourth District issued a per curiam decision stating only “Affirmed.”
- The verified case identity is Kendrick Williams v. State of Florida, No. 4D2024-3261, decided November 5, 2026.
- The appeal came from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County; N. Hunter Davis, Judge; L.T. Case No. 062016CF003710A88810.
- Counsel of record were Daniel Eisinger and Ethan R. Goldberg for appellant, and James Uthmeier and Sorraya M. Solages-Jones for appellee.
- The order states that it is not final until disposition of a timely-filed motion for rehearing, but it does not say whether any such motion was filed or resolved.
Why It Matters
This order matters primarily because it confirms the appellate outcome while providing no public reasoning. For attorneys, the accurate classification is important: this is not a merits opinion that can be mined for analysis, standards, or issue-specific holdings. It establishes only that the Fourth District affirmed the lower court in this appeal.
The document also illustrates the limits of what can responsibly be reported from a one-page per curiam affirmance. A faithful account can verify the parties, court, date, docket number, lower tribunal, counsel, disposition, panel participation, and finality notation, but it cannot describe the facts, legal issues, or reasons for affirmance because the public order does not disclose them.