William Brunner v. State of Florida
Summary
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, affirmed the denial of William Brunner's Rule 3.800 motion challenging his 1993 Palm Beach County criminal conviction. The per curiam decision was authored by a unanimous three-judge panel (KUNTZ, C.J., MAY and LOTT, JJ.) with no separate opinion issued beyond the affirmance. This routine appellate affirmance carries no precedential value beyond the parties and does not establish new legal standards for post-conviction review in Florida.
About this source
Florida's District Courts of Appeal sit between the trial courts and the Florida Supreme Court. Six districts cover the state, hearing appeals on civil judgments, criminal convictions, family law orders, and administrative decisions. This feed tracks every published opinion across all six districts, around 125 a month, with the case name, appellant, type of relief sought, and outcome. Watch this if you practice civil litigation in Florida, defend insurance disputes (the carriers fight a lot of appeals here), or follow Florida's busy criminal post-conviction docket. GovPing pulls from CourtListener's official mirror of the courts' RSS feeds.
What changed
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Circuit Court's denial of William Brunner's Rule 3.800 motion, which challenged his 1993 conviction (Case No. 501993CF008750AXXXMB) in Palm Beach County before Judge Cymonie S Rowe. The appellate court issued a per curiam affirmance with no written opinion explaining its reasoning.
For criminal defendants and pro se litigants filing post-conviction motions in Florida, this case illustrates the deferential standard of appellate review applied to Rule 3.800 denials. The affirmance provides no novel legal guidance; practitioners and defendants should note the standard remains high for obtaining relief on post-conviction motions, and that per curiam affirmances without explanation do not create binding precedent.
Archived snapshot
Apr 23, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
April 23, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
William Brunner v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 4D2025-3707
Disposition: Affirmed
Disposition
Affirmed
Combined Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
WILLIAM BRUNNER,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D2025-3707
[April 23, 2026]
Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for
the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Cymonie S Rowe,
Judge; L.T. Case No. 501993CF008750AXXXMB.
William Brunner, Miami, pro se.
No appearance required for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
KUNTZ, C.J., MAY and LOTT, JJ., concur.
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.
Named provisions
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for FL District Court of Appeal Opinions
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Source
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from FL District.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when FL District Court of Appeal Opinions publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.