Background
Brian C. Lacy appealed to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, from an order of the Circuit Court for Sarasota County. The opinion identifies the appeal as one brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2), and it names Dana Moss as the circuit court judge. Lacy appeared pro se. The opinion does not describe the underlying criminal case, the conviction or sentence, any postconviction motion, the specific order under review, or the arguments presented on appeal.
The appellate court’s entire disposition consists of a per curiam affirmance. The opinion states: “PER CURIAM. Affirmed.” Judges Silberman, Villanti, and Morris concurred. No written reasoning, legal analysis, or citation to authority accompanies the affirmance. The opinion also carries the standard caveat that it is subject to revision prior to official publication.
Because the opinion supplies no factual background or legal rationale, this summary is limited to the express contents of the order. No claims, issues, standards of review, or legal propositions can be attributed to the court beyond what the document states on its face.
The Court’s Holding
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirmed the order of the Circuit Court for Sarasota County. The disposition is a per curiam affirmance without opinion. The full text of the court’s action is: “PER CURIAM. Affirmed.”
Judges Silberman, Villanti, and Morris concurred in the affirmance. The opinion does not assign authorship to any individual judge, does not include a Before line, and does not provide any reasoning or legal authority supporting the result. The affirmance is therefore a summary disposition that upholds the circuit court’s order without explaining the basis for doing so.
The opinion does not indicate whether the affirmance rests on the merits of any particular claim, on procedural grounds, on waiver or forfeiture, or on any other basis. It does not identify the issues Lacy raised, the standard of review applied, or the legal principles the court found controlling. Any description of the court’s reasoning would be speculation and is therefore omitted.
Key Takeaways
- The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a Sarasota County Circuit Court order in an appeal brought under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2).
- The disposition was per curiam: “PER CURIAM. Affirmed.” Judges Silberman, Villanti, and Morris concurred.
- Brian C. Lacy appeared pro se. Dana Moss was the circuit court judge.
- The opinion contains no reasoning, no statement of facts, no identification of issues, and no citation to legal authority.
- The opinion is subject to revision prior to official publication.
Why It Matters
Per curiam affirmances without opinion are a common form of appellate disposition in Florida’s district courts of appeal. They resolve the appeal and uphold the lower court’s order, but they provide no precedential reasoning and no insight into the court’s analysis. For practitioners, such dispositions underscore the importance of the trial court record and the difficulty of obtaining reversal when the appellate court declines to explain its decision.
Because this opinion supplies no reasoning, it cannot be cited for any legal proposition beyond the fact of the affirmance itself. Attorneys reviewing this case should note that the absence of a written opinion means the scope and basis of the court’s decision are not publicly available, and the affirmance should not be read as endorsing or rejecting any particular legal argument.