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

Case
Michele Amato Biancaniello v. State of Florida
Court
Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal
Judge
MAKAR; LAMBERT; SOUD
Date Decided
October 29, 2026
Docket No.
5D2025-2904
Topics
Criminal Appeal, Per Curiam Affirmance
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Michele Amato Biancaniello appealed in a case originating in the Circuit Court for St. Johns County, where R. Lee Smith was the judge. The appellate opinion identifies the lower-tribunal case number as 2024-001722-CF-MA.

The opinion does not describe the facts, charges, procedural history, arguments on appeal, or the specific ruling under review.

The Court’s Holding

The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed. The decision was issued per curiam, with Judges MAKAR, LAMBERT, and SOUD concurring.

The court provided no reasoning or discussion of the issues presented. The opinion therefore establishes only that the ruling under review was affirmed, not the grounds for the court’s decision.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fifth District affirmed the ruling under review.
  • The per curiam opinion contains no factual or legal analysis.
  • The decision does not identify the specific issue presented or the particular lower-court ruling being reviewed.

Why It Matters

The decision resolves Biancaniello’s appeal in the State’s favor, subject to disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

Because the court supplied no explanation, the opinion offers no articulated legal rule or reasoning for attorneys to apply in other cases.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top