Florida Criminal Case Law Update

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal recently issued an important decision for anyone involved in probation violation litigation in Florida. In State v. Brady, No. 2D2025-0390 (Fla. 2d DCA May 6, 2026), the court dismissed the State’s appeal after a trial judge suppressed evidence in a violation of probation (“VOP”) proceeding, holding that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the order at that stage of the case.

For criminal defendants and defense attorneys alike, postconviction litigation under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is a critical, but often misunderstood, stage of a case. In Mejia v. State, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a significant opinion clarifying when a postconviction court must address claims raised in a motion, and when it does not.

In Edwards v. State, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal addressed an important procedural issue in violation of probation (VOP) cases, clarifying that a defendant cannot enter a “plea” to a violation of probation, even though courts and practitioners sometimes use that terminology loosely.

In State v. Scott Florida's 2nd DCA held that an information for resisting an officer without violence is sufficient if it tracks the statutory language and provides basic notice of the charge. Courts should not require excessive factual detail at the charging stage.

In Page v. State, No. 2D2023-1850 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 25, 2026), Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal addressed sentencing errors arising from a drive-by shooting prosecution.

On 03/25/2026 the 2nd DCA reversed Jordan's convictions, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for continuance after the defendant retained private counsel and committed reversible error by failing to conduct a required faretta inquiry after the defendant unequivocally invoked his right to self-representation.

In October of 2025, Florida's Second District Court of Appeal sent shockwaves through the criminal law community by changing course on the longstanding precedent that the odor of cannabis alone was sufficient to establish probable cause.