Roosa v. State — Fifth District affirmed without a written explanation

Case
Patricia Lynn Roosa v. State of Florida
Court
Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal
Judge
JAY, C.J. (Ron DeSantis, 2023); WALLIS, J. (Rick Scott, 2013); Soud, J. (Ron DeSantis, 2022)
Date Decided
October 20, 2026
Docket No.
5D2025-2960
Topics
Rule 3.800 Appeal, Per Curiam Affirmance
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Patricia Lynn Roosa appealed from the Circuit Court for Flagler County, where Judge Dawn D. Nichols presided. The Fifth District identified the proceeding only as a “3.800 Appeal” and did not describe the underlying facts, Roosa’s arguments, or the circuit court’s reasoning.

Roosa was represented on appeal by Ryan Edward McFarland of Kent & McFarland. The State was represented by Attorney General James Uthmeier and Assistant Attorney General Rebecca Rock McGuigan.

The Court’s Holding

The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s decision.

The court issued a per curiam disposition consisting solely of “AFFIRMED.” It provided no factual discussion, legal analysis, or explanation of the grounds for affirmance.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fifth District affirmed the circuit court’s ruling.
  • The three-judge panel consisted of Chief Judge Jay and Judges Wallis and Soud.
  • Because the opinion contains no reasoning, it does not disclose the issue presented or the basis for the court’s decision.

Why It Matters

The decision leaves the circuit court’s ruling in place but supplies no written rationale. Its significance is therefore limited to the disposition of Roosa’s appeal on the record presented.

✉️ 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Your email address will not be published.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