Background
The Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam opinion in Lenuel Josia Velazquez v. State of Florida, Case No. 6D2025-2071, on November 6, 2026. The opinion identifies Lower Tribunal No. 2024-CF-016675-A-O and states that the matter is an appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Barbara J. Leach is identified as the judge. The caption lists Lenuel Josia Velazquez as Appellant and the State of Florida as Appellee.
The document does not describe the events that led to the appeal, identify any charge, or set out the arguments presented by either party. It also does not specify the nature of the lower-tribunal ruling. Accordingly, the public text supplies the case’s identifying information and appellate disposition, but not a factual narrative or a statement of the appellate issues.
The opinion identifies counsel as Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Tosha Cohen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. It identifies James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Zachary L. Wiseman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. These appearances are part of the document’s stated case information; the opinion does not summarize counsel’s positions.
The Court’s Holding
The court’s stated disposition is “AFFIRMED.” The opinion does not further describe what was affirmed or explain the basis for the affirmance. It should therefore not be characterized as supplying a factual finding, resolving a specified appellate issue, or identifying a particular lower-tribunal decision beyond the express case information quoted above.
Immediately after “AFFIRMED,” the opinion states: “See Phoenix v. State, 455 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 1984).” It then quotes the following parenthetical from Phoenix: “Common sense dictates that law enforcement officials, when they are outside their jurisdictions, should not be any less capable, by virtue of their position, of making a felony arrest than a private citizen.” That quotation is the only substantive legal language accompanying the disposition in this opinion.
The Phoenix quotation appears as part of the citation following the affirmance. The opinion does not explain how Phoenix relates to Velazquez’s case, does not apply the quoted language to any described facts, and does not state that an arrest outside an officer’s jurisdiction occurred or was litigated here. The document concludes with the statement: “NARDELLA, WHITE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.” Because the opinion is expressly per curiam and contains no Before or panel line, the metadata identifies the judge as “Per Curiam”; the concurrence line is reported without inferring authorship or adding other names.
Key Takeaways
- The Sixth District’s per curiam opinion states only “AFFIRMED” as its disposition and provides no separate explanation of the ruling.
- The opinion cites Phoenix v. State, 455 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 1984), and reproduces the quoted parenthetical concerning law enforcement officials outside their jurisdictions and felony arrests.
- The citation and quotation are not accompanied by facts, charges, appellate issues, or an explanation connecting Phoenix to this case.
- The express case information includes Case No. 6D2025-2071, Lower Tribunal No. 2024-CF-016675-A-O, an appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Barbara J. Leach as judge, and the date November 6, 2026.
- The opinion states that Nardella, White and Gannam, JJ., concurred, and includes the notation that it is not final until the time expires to file a motion for rehearing and disposition thereof if timely filed.
Why It Matters
For readers, the principal point is the limited scope of what this document establishes. It records an affirmance and a citation to Phoenix, including the quoted parenthetical, but it supplies no underlying facts or identified appellate issue. The quotation can be reported accurately as language appearing in the opinion; it cannot, from this text alone, support a conclusion about the circumstances of Velazquez’s case or the question the court resolved.
The opinion also illustrates the need to distinguish a citation from an articulated rationale. Although Phoenix is cited immediately after the affirmance, the court does not say that it is adopting a particular rule for a stated reason, applying that rule to specified conduct, or announcing a broader conclusion. A faithful account therefore preserves the exact disposition, citation, quotation, case information, counsel listings, concurrence statement, and finality notation while expressly acknowledging that public reasoning beyond those contents is unavailable.