Background
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, issued a one-page per curiam decision in Douglas P. Sollenberger v. State of Florida, No. 2D2025-3171, on November 6, 2026. The opinion identifies the matter as an appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County and names Wesley Tibbals as the circuit judge. Tibbals is identified in connection with the court from which the appeal was taken, not as a member of the appellate panel. The opinion does not describe the underlying proceedings in the circuit court, the nature of the case, or the ruling that Sollenberger challenged on appeal.
Joe Caimano of Tampa appeared for Appellant Douglas P. Sollenberger. For Appellee State of Florida, the opinion lists James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa. It also lists James A. Hellickson, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, and expressly notes that Hellickson was substituted as counsel of record. The opinion does not explain the substitution or provide any additional procedural history beyond the appeal’s origin and the identification of counsel.
The public opinion supplies no underlying facts. It does not identify any claims, charges, motions, evidentiary disputes, sentences, or other matters that may have been involved in the circuit court. It also does not set out the arguments presented by either party or the issues that the Second District was asked to resolve. Accordingly, the background that can be reported from this opinion is limited to the parties, the appellate docket number and decision date, the appeal’s origin in the Hillsborough County circuit court, and the listed counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The decision states “PER CURIAM.” and then gives its entire disposition in one word: “Affirmed.” The opinion separately states, “MORRIS, ATKINSON, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.” Thus, the reported outcome is an affirmance, with Judges Morris, Atkinson, and Labrit concurring. The opinion does not contain a Before line or otherwise provide a fuller panel designation. It also does not identify an authoring judge or attribute any reasoning to an individual member of the court.
No legal analysis accompanies the affirmance. The opinion does not identify a standard of review, discuss any issue, cite any authority, or explain why the circuit court’s ruling was affirmed. It therefore cannot support a statement that the court affirmed on any particular legal ground, resolved a particular question of law, or adopted a specific rationale. Nor does the opinion supply a basis for describing the scope of the underlying dispute or for distinguishing among possible claims. The only holding expressly stated in the public text is the affirmance itself.
The opinion also carries the notation, “Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.” That notation is part of the released document and should be preserved when describing the decision. Nothing in the opinion indicates whether any later revision might occur or what such a revision might contain.
Key Takeaways
- The Second District affirmed in Douglas P. Sollenberger v. State of Florida, No. 2D2025-3171, on November 6, 2026.
- The decision is per curiam, and the opinion states that Morris, Atkinson, and Labrit, JJ., concur.
- The appeal came from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Wesley Tibbals is identified as the circuit judge.
- The one-page opinion provides no underlying facts, issues, authorities, legal analysis, or reasons for affirmance.
- The opinion states that it is subject to revision prior to official publication.
Why It Matters
For attorneys tracking Florida appellate decisions, this opinion establishes the reported outcome and the limited information publicly available in the decision itself. It confirms an affirmance in the identified appeal, but it does not announce or explain a legal proposition that can be attributed to the court. Any account of the case must therefore avoid supplying facts, arguments, or reasoning that do not appear in the opinion.
The decision’s practical significance for legal-news purposes is consequently narrow: it records the disposition, identifies the case and counsel, and notes the concurring judges. It does not provide a public explanation of the court’s decision-making. Readers seeking the underlying dispute or the basis for affirmance would need information beyond this opinion; none can be inferred from its text.