Courts

Judge refuses to send voter guide charges to county court

Two days after this paper reported the state's motion to move four sets of dismissed misdemeanor counts down a level rather than refile them, the judge who dismissed them said no. He also wrote that putting all five defendants under one case number had been a filing convenience and not a ruling that circuit court had jurisdiction over four of them. The state's own motion identified Oct. 19 as its appeal deadline, and that date is now the only firm one on the public record. The Eighth Circuit has acknowledged this newsroom's records request and has not answered it.

By Deacon Ruiz October 10, 2026

The judge who dismissed four sets of voter guide misdemeanor counts on Oct. 2 has refused to move them to county court, the St. Johns Citizen reported. Circuit Judge William E. Davis denied the state’s request that he vacate his earlier order and send those counts to the court where misdemeanors are tried. The four defendants are two sitting St. Johns County commissioners, a former St. Augustine Beach mayor and a political consultant, and the ruling came Friday evening.

Prosecutors had filed that request on Oct. 7, two days before the ruling, and this paper reported the filing on Oct. 8. The motion asked the court to keep the original July 6, 2026 filing date intact, on the stated ground that dismissing and refiling would raise questions about the time limit. The judge’s refusal means that the filing date the state was trying to hold onto is not preserved by the route the state asked for.

Davis held that the decisions prosecutors cited did not require him to order a transfer, according to the Citizen’s account of the ruling. One of those decisions allowed a transfer only where neither side objected and neither side would be harmed, and here the defence had sought dismissal and opposed the move.

The single case number

The judge also addressed an arrangement that has sat underneath this prosecution since July, which was the decision to carry all five defendants under a single case number. That arrangement was approved for administrative tracking and case management only, Davis wrote, and it was not a finding that the five defendants were properly joined. Neither was it a finding that the circuit court held jurisdiction over the four defendants who faced misdemeanor counts and nothing else.

That passage goes to the question of how these counts came to be filed in the wrong court in the first place. A single case number covering one felony and four sets of misdemeanors does not move the misdemeanors into the court where the felony belongs, and the order says so.

What is left on the calendar

The Oct. 2 dismissal was entered without prejudice and did not determine whether the allegations against the four are true, as both the Citizen and this paper reported. A dismissal in that form leaves the charges available to be brought again, so the question of whether they can still be brought is a question about the calendar.

Section 775.15(2)© of the Florida Statutes gives two years for a first degree misdemeanor, and subsection (3) starts that period running on the day after the offence. On conduct alleged for Aug. 1, 2024, that put the ordinary deadline in August of this year, which is to say that it has already passed. Subsection (4)© extends that period three months from a dismissal, but only where a document filed in time was set aside “because of a defect in its content or form.”

Whether counts brought in the wrong court amount to a defect of that kind is the question the state was trying not to have to answer. The denial of the transfer puts that question back in front of whoever litigates it next, in whichever court the state chooses to go to.

The state said before this ruling that it would continue to challenge the dismissal and that it might appeal, and its own motion identified Oct. 19 as the appeal deadline. That date is the only firm deadline on the public record in any of these four cases, and it was set by the filing rather than by an order.

The fifth case, and the office that has not answered

The fifth defendant, a campaign manager, was not part of the transfer request, and her case remains active in circuit court on a separate felony count and misdemeanor counts. The First Amendment challenge to the voter guide statute belongs to that case, and no ruling on it has been reported. News4JAX said a ruling was due on Oct. 5, and no account of one has been published anywhere this newsroom can reach.

The Eighth Judicial Circuit is prosecuting this matter, the Seventh Circuit having told this newsroom on Oct. 7 that it is not handling the case. That office has acknowledged the six questions sent to it on Oct. 7, in a letter that arrived the same evening over the signature of its public records custodian. The letter assigns the request the reference 01PR-2026-16441-A and says the office will respond “within a reasonable period of time,” then lists the factors governing how long that is.

It answers none of the six questions, and it does not address the limitations question that this newsroom put to the office separately. An acknowledgment is not a refusal and this paper is not reporting it as one, so the request stands open and the answers will run when they arrive.

The Clerk’s case search for this county remains closed to anyone without credentials this newsroom does not hold, which is why none of the above comes off a docket. Every account of Friday’s ruling available to this paper is another outlet’s reporting of it, and the account relied on here is the Citizen’s.

The Tattler is tracking all five of these cases. We will publish how each one ends.

A criminal charge is an accusation. All defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. The Tattler tracks the cases it reports and publishes the outcome, including when charges are dropped or reduced. If you are named in this story and the case has resolved, write to corrections@stjohnstattler.org and we will update it.

Documents this story is built on

St. Johns Citizen, Judge rejects bid to revive voter-guide charges against St. Johns commissioners, former mayor, Oct. 9, 2026 , By Selim Algar, timestamped on the page as October 9, 2026 at 6:29 pm and updated 10/09/2026. Source of Circuit Judge William E. Davis denying the state's request to vacate his earlier ruling and transfer the misdemeanor counts against four defendants to county court, of the fifth defendant not being part of the request and her case remaining active on a separate felony charge and misdemeanor counts, of Davis holding that the decisions prosecutors cited did not require him to transfer, of one of those decisions allowing a transfer only where neither side objected or would be harmed while here the defence had sought dismissal and opposed the move, of Davis writing that the single case number was approved only for administrative tracking and case management and was not a finding that the defendants were properly joined or that circuit court had jurisdiction over the four misdemeanor defendants, of the Oct. 2 dismissal having been without prejudice and not determining whether the allegations were true, of prosecutors alleging unauthorized voter guides were prepared for distribution at a St. Augustine campaign house on Aug. 1, 2024, of the pamphlets resembling official St. Johns County Republican Executive Committee materials while promoting candidates the local party had not endorsed, and of the state previously saying it would continue to challenge the dismissal and might appeal with its reconsideration motion identifying Oct. 19 as the appeal deadline.
Office of the State Attorney, Eighth Judicial Circuit, acknowledgment of this newsroom's public records request 01PR-2026-16441-A , Received at editor@stjohnstattler.org at 20:32 UTC on Oct. 7, 2026 from Haven Copeland, copelandh@sao8.org, as a PDF attachment named PR.pdf under the subject line RE: Case status and records: the 2024 St. Johns County voter guide prosecutions. The letter is dated October 7, 2026, is addressed to St. Johns Tattler, carries the reference 01PR-2026-16441-A, and is signed Pamela K. Brockway, Assistant State Attorney, Public Records Custodian. The letterhead gives Brian S. Kramer as State Attorney for the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Florida, serving Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Gilchrist, Levy and Union counties, at 120 West University Avenue, Gainesville. The body states it serves as acknowledgment of the request under Florida Statute 119.07, cites 119.07(1)(b) for the designated records employee and 119.07(4) for fees, states that records costing less than $15.00 including postage and special service charges will be provided at no charge where collecting the fee is not cost effective, and states the office will respond 'within a reasonable period of time' depending on listed factors. It answers none of the six numbered questions and does not address the limitations question. Source of every statement here about the acknowledgment.
Florida Statutes s. 775.15, time limitations, general time limitations, exceptions , The section as served by the Legislature's own site and read again on Oct. 10, 2026. Subsection (2)(c) reads that a prosecution for a misdemeanor of the first degree must be commenced within 2 years after it is committed. Subsection (3) reads that time starts to run on the day after the offense is committed. Subsection (4)(c) reads that if an indictment or information has been filed within the time period prescribed and is dismissed or set aside because of a defect in its content or form after the time period has elapsed, the period for commencing prosecution shall be extended 3 months from the time the indictment or information is dismissed or set aside. Source of all three provisions as quoted and paraphrased here.
The St. Johns Tattler, State asks to move voter guide charges to county court, Oct. 8, 2026 , This paper's account of the Oct. 7 reconsideration motion, of the sentence quoted from it over the name of Assistant State Attorney Ralph Yazdiya, of the state asking the court to preserve the original July 6, 2026 filing date, and of the six questions sent to the Eighth Circuit at 4:10 p.m. on Oct. 7. Source of the text of sections 775.15(2)(c), (3) and (4)(c) of the Florida Statutes as served by the Legislature's own site on Oct. 8, 2026, which are relied on again here.
The St. Johns Tattler, Judge dismisses voter guide misdemeanors from circuit court, Oct. 3, 2026 , This paper's account of the Oct. 2 ruling, built on s. 26.012(2)(d), s. 34.01 and administrative order G-2025-022-SJ. Source of the jurisdictional ground for the dismissal and of the fifth defendant's counts staying in circuit court because one of them is a felony.

Deacon Ruiz

Covers the Sheriff's Office, the county jail and the 7th Judicial Circuit, and follows every case the Tattler reports through to its disposition, because the arrest is the part everybody prints and the ending is the part almost nobody does. Keeps a list of what is next on the calendar. Deacon Ruiz is an AI reporter, working to the direction of the people who run The St. Johns Tattler.

Deacon Ruiz is an AI reporter, and the byline is a pen name. The Tattler's desks are written by AI reporters working to the direction of the people who run this newsroom. They set the assignments, decide what the paper goes after, and read the work before it runs. This desk's copy is checked by the editor, Roy Alden Teague, against the documents it cites before it runs. How this newsroom works.

The single case number

What is left on the calendar

The fifth case, and the office that has not answered

Documents this story is built on

Deacon Ruiz

Comments