This week’s Florida appellate decisions, covered case by case: two vehicular homicide convictions reversed because a detective’s speed calculation, built on internet vehicle weights and angles measured on Google Maps with a protractor, came in as “investigation” instead of expert testimony. Plus polygraph-prompted admissions in a sex offender probation case, a probation revocation that rested only on an arrest affidavit, a misdemeanor information that stayed a misdemeanor, the Leon County grand jury presentment expunged under the rule that a grand jury indicts or exonerates, and a stand your ground prohibition petition. On the injury side, sovereign immunity for DCF and a State contractor decided as a matter of law, a signed waiver that ended a premises claim, and the 2027 change to initial damages disclosures. Then a deep dive on the officer’s opinion: when a police witness’s conclusion is lay testimony, when it becomes expert testimony, and why the difference decides crash cases.

PRACTICE AREAS THIS WEEK: six criminal decisions, three injury decisions, and one Florida Supreme Court rule change.

CHAPTERS
0:00 The side door
1:40 Faustin: a detective’s speed formula, admitted as investigation
4:49 Velazquez: polygraph results out, the admissions in
7:12 Marshall: a probation violation proved only by hearsay
9:16 Noel: a misdemeanor information stays a misdemeanor
10:36 The Leon County grand jury presentment, expunged
13:12 Smith: stand your ground and the prohibition standard
14:10 Gainey: sovereign immunity for DCF and its contractor
17:20 Linares: the waiver, and the rule 1.280 change
18:31 Deep dive: when an officer’s opinion becomes expert testimony
23:04 The working playbook: lay or expert
25:19 The week in one line

Cases covered:
Faustin v. State, 4D2024-2667 and 4D2024-2669 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 7, 2026)
Velazquez v. State, 1D2025-0550 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 7, 2026)
Marshall v. State, 5D2025-3795 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 5, 2026)
Noel v. State, 3D25-0056 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 7, 2026)
In re Leon County Grand Jury Presentment, Fall of 2025, 1D2026-2435 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 7, 2026) (Bilbrey, J., concurring in part and in result)
Smith v. State, 1D2025-1130 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 7, 2026) (Winokur, J., concurring)
Florida Department of Children and Families v. Gainey, 1D2025-2106 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 7, 2026)
Crandall Medical Consulting, LLC v. Gainey, 1D2025-2124 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 7, 2026)
Linares v. Dezerland Park, LLC, 3D25-1650 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 8, 2026)
In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280, SC2025-1497 (Fla. Oct. 8, 2026)

Also discussed: Kian v. Florida, No. 25-6623 (U.S. cert. granted June 15, 2026); State ex rel. Brautigam v. Interim Report of Grand Jury, 93 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1957); Sanislo v. Give Kids the World, Inc., 157 So. 3d 256 (Fla. 2015); Urban Air Jacksonville, LLC v. Hinton, 415 So. 3d 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025).

Discussed in the deep dive: Fla. Stat. §§ 90.701 and 90.702; In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, 278 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 2019); Fino v. Nodine, 646 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Kemp v. State, 280 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Stukins v. State, 418 So. 3d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025); Martinez v. State, 761 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2000); Olano Sanchez v. State, 3D24-0231 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 10, 2025); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986); Faustin v. State, 4D2024-2667 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 7, 2026).

Most of these decisions are not final until the time for rehearing expires. Want the opinions, or the one-page lay-or-expert objection worksheet? Email rory@thesafirlawyer.com and I will send them over, no charge.

Safir Injury and Criminal Defense Law handles criminal, DUI, and personal injury matters across Florida, and we gladly accept referrals from fellow attorneys. Call or text 727-472-8096, or find us at thesafirlawyer.com.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here. Attorney Rory Safir is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.

This week’s Florida appellate decisions, covered case by case: a man walking his two snakes, convicted of resisting a stop the deputies never had grounds to make, acquitted by the Fifth District because a matching description is all they had. Plus a hot-car felony murder conviction reversed because the State never had to prove the defendant knew, the First District openly rejecting the Second District’s rule on explaining a refusal to depart, a sentence built on withdrawn violation affidavits, a resentencing held without the defendant, a contempt finding that rested on the spirit of an order, and the new sworn-motion requirement for rule 3.190(d)(2). On the civil side, a punitive damages proffer measured one defendant at a time, a personal jurisdiction appeal dismissed, and the new signature rule for discovery. Then a deep dive on the 911 call: when a caller’s report is enough to stop someone, and what that means for the DUI stop that starts with a dispatch.

PRACTICE AREAS THIS WEEK: eight criminal decisions, two civil decisions, and two Florida Supreme Court rule changes.

CHAPTERS
0:00 The missing element
1:55 Holliday: the snakes, the 911 call, and the resisting charge
3:59 Jewell: the hot car, knowledge, and felony murder
8:14 Weber: the First District rejects the Second on departures
10:26 Mc Taw: withdrawn affidavits at sentencing
11:50 Ganga: resentencing without the defendant
13:05 Rule 3.190(d)(2): sworn again
13:46 The rest of the criminal week
15:54 Benedetto: a punitive proffer, one defendant at a time
17:31 Holms, and the new discovery signature rule
18:43 Deep dive: when a 911 call justifies a stop
23:09 The working playbook for a 911 stop
25:06 The week in one line

Cases covered:
Holliday v. State, 5D2024-1865 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 2, 2026)
Jewell v. State, 1D2024-3279 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 30, 2026) (Osterhaus, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
Weber v. State, 1D2025-1427 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 30, 2026)
Mc Taw v. State, 3D24-0843 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 30, 2026)
Ganga v. State, 5D2024-2695 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 2, 2026)
In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190, SC2024-0839 (Fla. Oct. 1, 2026)
A.C. v. State, 5D2026-0508 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 2, 2026)
Johnson v. State, 3D25-0403 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 30, 2026)
State v. Hernandez, 3D24-1122 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 30, 2026)
Benedetto v. Cuatt, 4D2024-2388 and 4D2025-0265 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 30, 2026)
Progressive Michigan Insurance Co. v. Holms, 6D2025-2413 (Fla. 6th DCA Oct. 2, 2026)
In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(k), SC2025-1053 (Fla. Oct. 1, 2026)

Also discussed: R.E. v. State, 536 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Mahaun v. State, 377 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1979); Kian v. Florida, No. 25-6623 (U.S. cert. granted June 15, 2026); Banks v. State, 732 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1999); Gazoombi v. State, 406 So. 3d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025); Williams v. State, 286 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); Manyak v. State, 414 So. 3d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025); Kezal v. State, 42 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Jordan v. State, 143 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 2014); Brown v. State, 719 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); State v. Korson, 413 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025); Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Co., 434 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 2026).

Discussed in the deep dive: Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990); Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000); Baptiste v. State, 995 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2008); Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014); Peterson v. State, 264 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); Holliday v. State, 5D2024-1865 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 2, 2026).

Most of these decisions are not final until the time for rehearing expires. Want the opinions, or the one-page worksheet for taking apart a 911 stop? Email rory@thesafirlawyer.com and I will send them over, no charge.

Safir Injury and Criminal Defense Law handles criminal, DUI, and personal injury matters across Florida, and we gladly accept referrals from fellow attorneys. Call or text 727-472-8096, or find us at thesafirlawyer.com.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here. Attorney Rory Safir is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.

This week’s Florida appellate decisions, covered case by case: a Sarasota sexual battery conviction reversed because the jury heard that the complainant accused her stepfather of abuse but never heard that the abuse was sexual, the one word the Second District said carried the defense. Plus PTSD evidence that needed an expert after Oquendo, the First District openly disagreeing with the Fourth on the abnormal mental condition instruction, a medical examiner allowed to relay an absent analyst’s toxicology, two traffic-stop decisions on exit orders and burned cannabis, a surcharge the State tried to concede away, two punitive damages proffers against commercial drivers, and a Pasco slip and fall that ended on summary judgment. Then a deep dive on the substitute analyst: who has to take the stand for a lab result, and what that means for the blood report in a DUI file.

PRACTICE AREAS THIS WEEK: ten criminal decisions and three injury decisions, with two Sarasota cases, a Duval trucking case, and a Pasco premises case.

CHAPTERS
0:00 What the jury hears
1:56 Johnson: the one word the jury never heard
4:27 Bedward: PTSD after Oquendo
6:06 Gabriel: the First District disagrees with the Fourth
7:52 Fonte: the medical examiner and someone else’s toxicology
9:16 Parish and Smith: exit orders and burned cannabis
10:51 Adderley: the State concedes, and the court does the math
11:38 The rest of the week
12:31 Limousines and Gresham: when a jury hears punitive damages
16:08 Ausburn: the slip and fall nobody could describe
18:07 Deep dive: the substitute analyst and the DUI blood report
22:34 The working playbook for a lab result
25:15 The week in one line

Cases covered:
Johnson v. State, 2D2024-0982 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 25, 2026)
Bedward v. State, 4D2024-0072 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 23, 2026)
Gabriel v. State, 1D2023-3107 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 23, 2026)
Fonte v. State, 3D25-0850 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 23, 2026)
Parish v. State, 1D2025-3040 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 23, 2026)
Smith v. State, 1D2025-0497 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 23, 2026)
Adderley v. State, 1D2025-0188 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 23, 2026)
Brown v. State, 2D2025-2204 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 25, 2026)
Jenkins v. State, 5D2026-0151 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 25, 2026)
Beasley v. State, SC2026-1399 (Fla. Sept. 22, 2026)
Limousines of South Florida, Inc. v. Levit, 3D26-0024 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 23, 2026)
Gresham v. FEC Highway Services, LLC, 5D2024-2555 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 25, 2026) (Jay, C.J., dissenting)
Ausburn v. Wesley Chapel-T, LLC, 2D2025-0516 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 25, 2026)

Also discussed: Oquendo v. State, 420 So. 3d 466 (Fla. 2025); Perry v. State, 256 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); State v. Creller, 386 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2024); Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Co., 434 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 2026).

Discussed in the deep dive: Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004); State v. Belvin, 986 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 2008); State v. Johnson, 982 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2008); Baber v. State, 775 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2000); Sobota v. State, 933 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011); Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024); Robinson v. State, 3D23-1254 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 8, 2025).

Most of these decisions are not final until the time for rehearing expires. Want the opinions, or the one-page lab witness checklist? Email rory@thesafirlawyer.com and I will send them over, no charge.

Safir Injury and Criminal Defense Law handles criminal, DUI, and personal injury matters across Florida, and we gladly accept referrals from fellow attorneys. Call or text 727-472-8096, or find us at thesafirlawyer.com.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here. Attorney Rory Safir is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.

Two probation officers knocked at a Sarasota rooming house. Nobody answered, and a man received forty-five months in prison. Smith leads this week’s Florida caselaw episode, including Chief Judge Lucas’s dissent and the dispute over what the testimony actually established. Then Kafus addresses willfulness separately, Miller examines a Manatee bond hearing, and Gil Pino provides the contrast: specific observations supporting a DUI stop.

PRACTICE AREAS THIS WEEK: criminal law, DUI, probation, postconviction relief, stalking injunctions, personal injury, and public-sector employment. Local decisions include Sarasota, Manatee, Hillsborough, Pasco, and Polk Counties.

Also covered: an old misdemeanor capias, a DUI manslaughter plea claim, jail credit, a sentencing correction, future medical expenses, and noneconomic damages under the Public Whistleblower Act. The closing segment turns the curfew opinions into hearing preparation, including the questions to ask and the limits of what photographs and later visits can establish.

CHAPTERS
0:00 Show your work
1:27 Smith: the Sarasota curfew check
4:28 Lucas’s dissent: loud enough, long enough
5:57 Kafus: willfulness is a separate question
7:11 Cantrell: the misdemeanor capias and the missing search evidence
9:23 Miller: the Manatee bond hearing
10:53 Gil Pino: the testimony supporting the DUI stop
12:55 Hernandez: the plea claim and the prejudice analysis
14:04 Misner and Arreguin: jail credit and sentencing
14:55 The Lee County stalking injunction
15:45 Crews and Smiley
16:10 Reinberger: future medical expenses and pain and suffering
19:22 Pierre: public-sector whistleblower damages
19:51 Curfew hearing preparation
23:16 The week in one question

Cases covered:
Smith v. State, No. 2D2025-1715 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
Kafus v. State, No. 6D2025-1445 (Fla. 6th DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
Cantrell v. State, No. 6D2026-0749 (Fla. 6th DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
Miller v. State, No. 2D2026-1679 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
Gil Pino v. State, No. 3D25-1127 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 16, 2026)
Hernandez v. State, No. 2D2026-1292 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
Misner v. State, No. 5D2026-0697 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
Arreguin v. State, No. 4D2026-1087 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 16, 2026)
Lee County stalking injunction, No. 6D2024-0447 (Fla. 6th DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
Crews v. State, No. 6D2025-1085 (Fla. 6th DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
Smiley v. State, Nos. SC2024-1361 and SC2025-0250 (Fla. Sept. 17, 2026)
Progressive Select Insurance Co. v. Reinberger, No. 2D2024-2657 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 18, 2026)
City of Boynton Beach v. Pierre, No. 4D2026-0133 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 16, 2026)

Most of these decisions are not final until the time for rehearing expires. Want the opinions or the curfew hearing cross-examination checklist? Email rory@thesafirlawyer.com and I’ll send them over, no charge.

Safir Injury and Criminal Defense Law handles criminal, DUI, and personal injury matters across Florida, and we gladly accept referrals from fellow attorneys. Call or text 727-472-8096, or find us at thesafirlawyer.com.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here. Attorney Rory Safir is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.

This week’s Florida appellate decisions, covered case by case: deputies found a man asleep behind the wheel in a Hillsborough parking lot, and the whole case turned on whether the welfare check was still running when a deputy told him to roll down his window. The Second District said it was, and reversed the suppression order on the State’s own appeal. Plus a first-degree murder conviction reversed because the trial court answered one evidence question and never asked the second one, a manslaughter plea withdrawn because counsel never mentioned a suppression motion, a three-year minimum mandatory thrown out because the enhancement statute defines possession differently than the offense does, five defendants told that the six-person jury argument belongs in Washington, and a UM carrier that lost its rescission claim on the tortfeasor’s tax returns. Then a deep dive on the question every sleeping-driver case turns on: when does a welfare check end.

PRACTICE AREAS THIS WEEK: eleven criminal decisions and one injury decision, with a Hillsborough DUI stop, two Sarasota sentencing cases, a Manatee plea withdrawal, and an uninsured motorist appeal out of Indian River County.

CHAPTERS
0:00 The second question
1:27 Fuchs: the sleeping driver, and the window
4:12 Wellons: the flight evidence the jury never heard
6:16 Ruiz: the plea, and the suppression motion nobody mentioned
8:28 Hamilton: possession, and possession under the enhancement
9:49 The six-person jury cases, and how to preserve the issue
11:30 Edwards and Gunter: the scoresheet and the costs order
12:15 Auguste: the State concedes the door was closed
13:22 The rest of the week
13:42 Clark: Judge Neff on Florida’s Anders procedure
14:11 Heimler: the UM settlement and the insolvent tortfeasor
16:26 Deep dive: when does a welfare check end
23:28 The working playbook for a sleeping driver file
25:51 The week in one line

Cases covered:
State v. Fuchs, 2D2025-1542 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Wellons v. State, 4D2025-2340 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Ruiz v. State, 2D2025-2118 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Hamilton v. State, 2D2025-1231 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Mullins v. State, 2D2025-0655 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Tolliver v. State, 2D2025-1345 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Oakley v. State, 2D2025-1120 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Brown v. State, 2D2025-1071 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Edwards v. State, 2D2025-1211 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Gunter v. State, 6D2025-1045 (Fla. 6th DCA Sept. 10, 2026)
Auguste v. State, 4D2024-3260 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 9, 2026)
Clark v. State, 1D2025-0453 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 9, 2026) (Neff, J., concurring)
Progressive American Insurance Co. v. Heimler, 4D2025-1854 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 9, 2026)

Discussed in the deep dive: Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1993); Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973); Greider v. State, 977 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Dermio v. State, 112 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Daniels v. State, 346 So. 3d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022); Danielewicz v. State, 730 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Delorenzo v. State, 921 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); State v. Leiby, No. 4D2024-2490 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 5, 2025); Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. 194 (2021); Case v. Montana, No. 24-624 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2026); Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011).

Most of these decisions are not final until the time for rehearing expires. Want the opinions, or the one page welfare check timeline worksheet? Email rory@thesafirlawyer.com and I will send them over, no charge.

Safir Injury and Criminal Defense Law handles criminal, DUI, and personal injury matters across Florida, and we gladly accept referrals from fellow attorneys. Call or text 727-472-8096, or find us at thesafirlawyer.com.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here. Attorney Rory Safir is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.

This week's Florida appellate decisions, covered case by case: a driver refused a blood draw after a fatal Turnpike crash and the Fourth District affirmed suppression on the State's own appeal, receding from the one sentence prosecutors had been citing as a probable cause exception to the warrant requirement. Plus a Pinellas sexual battery conviction reversed for fundamental error over a steak knife and two condoms that had nothing to do with the case, a Tampa grand theft that became petit theft because nobody testified to depreciation, a fifth door shut on last week's Erlinger argument, and the Florida Supreme Court's rulings in the final week before a scheduled execution. Then a deep dive on the three ways the State can take blood in a DUI case and what each one now requires.

PRACTICE AREAS THIS WEEK: all criminal, with the DUI blood draw case of the year, two Pinellas decisions, two Hillsborough decisions, and a death warrant that runs out next Thursday.

CHAPTERS
0:00 The shortcut week
1:12 Marlin: the blood draw, the dicta, and the door that closed
5:48 Harris: the Pinellas timeline case Marlin now matches
7:26 Green: a Pinellas sexual battery reversed for fundamental error
10:27 Russell: a Tampa grand theft with no depreciation testimony
12:47 Foster: the fifth door on the Erlinger argument
13:36 Conahan: the final week before an execution
15:02 Lorincz, Agee, and the week's hundred and seventy affirmances
16:06 Deep dive: the three ways the State takes blood, and what each requires
21:30 The week in one line

Cases covered:
State v. Marlin, 4D2025-1448 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 2, 2026)
State v. Harris, 2D2023-1430 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 16, 2024)
Green v. State, 2D2024-1803 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 4, 2026)
Russell v. State, 2D2024-1373 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 28, 2026)
Foster v. State, 2D2024-2771 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 4, 2026)
Conahan v. State, SC2026-1234, SC2026-1236, SC2026-1281 & SC2026-1282 (Fla. Sept. 3, 2026)
Lorincz v. State, 5D2024-3437 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 3, 2026)
Agee v. State, 1D2023-3321 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 2, 2026)

Discussed in the deep dive: Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966); Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013); Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016); Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. 840 (2019); State v. Acevedo, 366 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023); State v. Liles, 191 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1992); State v. Geiss, 70 So. 3d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); sections 316.1932, 316.1933, and 933.02, Florida Statutes.

Most of these decisions are not final until the time for rehearing expires. Want the opinions, or the one page blood draw timeline worksheet? Email rory@thesafirlawyer.com and I will send them over, no charge.

Safir Injury and Criminal Defense Law handles criminal, DUI, and personal injury matters across Florida, and we gladly accept referrals from fellow attorneys. Call or text 727-472-8096, or find us at thesafirlawyer.com.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here. Attorney Rory Safir is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.

This week's Florida appellate decisions, covered case by case: the same Sixth Amendment sentencing argument turned away at two different doors in two different districts, a Jimmy Ryce challenge split between the right vehicle and the wrong one, a State appeal that lost in one word, a surgeon suing his own divorce lawyers and the discovery order that got quashed, a PIP claim that ended when the examination under oath was skipped, and new service rules for writs landing October 1. Plus a deep dive: the State of Florida has conceded in a footnote that the prison releasee reoffender statute is unconstitutional under Erlinger, and the one procedural door still open for raising it.

PRACTICE AREAS THIS WEEK: four criminal decisions, two on the injury side, and an appellate rule change that affects everybody.

CHAPTERS
0:00 The wrong door week
1:17 Hawkins: Erlinger is not retroactive, and a certified question still pending
3:46 Carpenter: the PRR life sentence and the wrong vehicle
5:20 Shaw: appeal and certiorari against one order, one of them dismissed
6:38 Jenkins: the State appealed and lost, in one word
7:32 Adorno-Cunill v. Dylewski: the discovery denial that eviscerated a defense
10:30 Feijoo: the examination under oath is a condition precedent
11:12 New appellate rules 9.020 and 9.100, effective October 1
11:58 The week's hundred affirmances, in one point
12:28 Deep dive: the concession in footnote thirteen, and the one door left
18:54 The week in one line

Cases covered:
Hawkins v. State, 3D23-0292 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 26, 2026)
Carpenter v. State, 1D2024-2821 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 26, 2026)
Shaw v. State, 3D24-1690 & 3D24-1934 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 26, 2026)
State v. Jenkins, 2D2025-1129 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 21, 2026)
Law Offices of Adorno-Cunill & Damas, P.L. v. Dylewski, 3D26-0840 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 26, 2026)
Feijoo, M.D., P.A. v. Progressive American Ins. Co., 3D25-0472 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 27, 2026)
North Florida Regional Medical Center v. Maloney, 1D2026-1317 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 24, 2026)
In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020 and 9.100, SC2025-2000 (Fla. Aug. 27, 2026)

Discussed in the deep dive: Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013); Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024); Maye v. State, SC2023-1184 (Fla. May 15, 2026), including footnote 13; Wainwright v. State, 411 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 2025); Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2014); Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008); section 775.082(9), Florida Statutes.

Most of these decisions are not final until the time for rehearing expires. Want the opinions, Maye with footnote 13 flagged, or the one page objection script for PRR and habitual offender sentencings? Email rory@thesafirlawyer.com and I will send them over, no charge.

Safir Injury and Criminal Defense Law handles criminal, DUI, and personal injury matters across Florida, and we gladly accept referrals from fellow attorneys. Call or text 727-472-8096, or find us at thesafirlawyer.com.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here. Attorney Rory Safir is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.

This week's Florida District Court of Appeal decisions, covered case by case: two counts of resisting arrest out of one continuous act at a high school, a juvenile sentence review clock set ten years late and fixed because the prisoner did the math himself, a juvenile sentence over the statutory cap, two suppression losses on the totality of the circumstances, a belated appeal granted, and two men told where the courthouse door closes. Plus a deep dive: how Florida counts crimes, and why Blockburger is two tests rather than one.

PRACTICE AREAS THIS WEEK: all criminal, for the second week running. Injury lawyers, the deep dive on double jeopardy still travels.

CHAPTERS
0:00 The counting week
0:58 K.B.: two counts of resisting from one continuous act
3:28 Wriden: the juvenile review clock, set ten years late
5:19 D.O.: a juvenile sentence over the statutory cap
5:48 Ptomy and Q.C.: two suppression losses on the totality
7:25 Pope: a belated appeal, granted
8:03 St. Fabre: the right rule, the wrong vehicle
10:01 Tisdol and Jackson: where collateral attack ends
11:14 Deep dive: how Florida counts crimes
18:59 The week in one line

Cases covered:
K.B., a Child v. State, 5D2025-1370 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug. 21, 2026)
Wriden v. State, 6D2024-2549 (Fla. 6th DCA Aug. 21, 2026)
D.O., a Child v. State, 5D2025-0775 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug. 21, 2026)
Ptomy v. State, 1D2025-1029 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 19, 2026)
Q.C., a Child v. State, 3D2025-1145 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 20, 2026)
Pope v. State, 5D2026-2164 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug. 21, 2026)
St. Fabre v. State, 1D2025-3163 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 19, 2026)
Tisdol v. State, 3D2026-0695 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 20, 2026)
Jackson v. State, 5D2026-1318 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug. 21, 2026)

Discussed in the deep dive: section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes; Trappman v. State (Fla. 2024); Gil v. State, 118 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 2013).

Most of these decisions are not final until the time for rehearing expires. Want the opinions? Email rory@thesafirlawyer.com and I will send them over, no charge.

Safir Injury and Criminal Defense Law handles criminal, DUI, and personal injury matters across Florida, and we gladly accept referrals from fellow attorneys. Call or text 727-472-8096, or find us at thesafirlawyer.com.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here. Attorney Rory Safir is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.