Florida 5DCA: Pinto Florez v State Florida Appeal Filed

• Jose Manuel Pinto Florez filed an appeal against the State of Florida in the Fifth District Court of Appeal, which was decided on September 26, 2025.
• The appellate case is identified as 5D2025-2087, originating from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
• The lower court case number was 16-2022-CF-007801-A, presided over by Judge Lindsay L. Tygart.
• Matthew J. Metz is the Public Defender for the 7th Judicial Circuit, which does not cover Duval County.
• The caption alone provides no substantive details about the legal issues, arguments, or outcome of the appeal.

The caption alone provides no substantive details about the legal issues, arguments, or outcome of the appeal.

An appeal has been formally initiated in the Florida judicial system, specifically before the Fifth District Court of Appeal, under the case designation *Jose Manuel Pinto Florez v. State of Florida*. This proceeding sees Jose Manuel Pinto Florez as the appellant, challenging a prior decision, with the State of Florida named as the appellee. The appellate court has assigned this matter case number 5D2025-2087, marking its entry into the appellate docket.

This particular appeal originates from the Circuit Court for Duval County, where the initial proceedings took place. The lower tribunal's case was identified by the number 16-2022-CF-007801-A. Presiding over the original Circuit Court proceedings was Judge Lindsay L. Tygart. Matthew J. Metz, identified as a Public Defender for the 7th Judicial Circuit, is noted in connection with the appeal, typically indicating representation for the appellant in such matters; however, the 7th Judicial Circuit does not cover Duval County.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal operates as an intermediate appellate court within Florida's three-tiered judicial structure, positioned between the trial courts and the Florida Supreme Court. Its primary function is to review decisions rendered by circuit and county courts within its geographical jurisdiction, ensuring that legal errors did not occur during the original proceedings. When a party, such as Jose Manuel Pinto Florez, is dissatisfied with a trial court's judgment, they may file an appeal, thereby becoming the 'appellant,' seeking a review of the lower court's application of law or procedure.

The State of Florida, as the 'appellee' in this instance, is the party against whom the appeal is brought, typically defending the correctness of the lower court's decision. The involvement of a Public Defender, Matthew J. Metz, who serves the 7th Judicial Circuit, underscores the constitutional right to counsel, particularly for indigent individuals, in criminal proceedings and subsequent appeals. The distinct case numbers—one for the appellate court (5D2025-2087) and another for the lower tribunal (16-2022-CF-007801-A)—serve to track the case's progression through different levels of the judiciary, from its initial adjudication in Duval County to its current review by the appellate panel.

The mere existence of an appellate court caption, such as the one for *Pinto Florez v. State of Florida*, provides only the most rudimentary details about a legal proceeding. While it confirms that an appeal was lodged and identifies the parties involved, it offers no substantive insight into the underlying legal dispute or the specific issues that prompted the appellant, Jose Manuel Pinto Florez, to challenge the Circuit Court's decision. Legal professionals and compliance officers, seeking actionable intelligence, would find this information insufficient for any practical application.

Without access to the full appellate opinion, the specific legal questions presented to the Fifth District Court of Appeal remain unknown. It is impossible to discern the nature of the original case in Duval County, the legal errors alleged by the appellant, or the arguments put forth by either the appellant's counsel or the State of Florida. Crucially, the outcome of this appeal, which was decided on September 26, 2025, is entirely absent from the caption.

Therefore, while the caption serves as an official record of the case's filing and its jurisdictional path, it does not convey any precedential value, reveal any new interpretations of law, or signal any shifts in judicial policy. For practitioners, the absence of the court's reasoning, the facts of the case, and the final disposition means that this particular filing, as presented solely by its caption, offers no guidance on legal strategy, risk assessment, or compliance obligations. Its primary utility, at this stage, is merely to confirm the procedural existence of the appeal within the Florida judicial system.

The provided text is solely the caption of an appellate court opinion. Without the substantive content of the ruling, there is no practical implication or actionable intelligence for a lawyer or compliance officer to derive from this information alone.

Source: Original reporting based on the appellate court caption.