Current Status
The most recent appellate proceeding documented here before the Third District Court of Appeal ended in June 2026. This page explains what was most recently decided, how the case reached that point, and which questions remained unresolved.
As of: June 26, 2026
A concise summary of the documented status of the most recent appellate proceeding.
On June 4, 2026, the Third District Court of Appeal denied Riechmann’s motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The court stated that it had considered the motion for rehearing, the State’s response, and Riechmann’s Reply and Amended Reply. The brief order, however, does not provide a new detailed explanation of the evidentiary and procedural issues raised in those filings.
On June 26, 2026, the Third DCA issued its mandate in the consolidated proceedings 3D2025-0018 and 3D2025-0102. That ended this regular phase of the appeal before the Third DCA.
Most Recent Procedural Phase
Between the new 2024 petition and the June 26, 2026 mandate, a separate procedural chain developed involving motions, appeals, filing-deadline issues, corrections to the record, and additional briefs.
May 2024
Riechmann files a new habeas corpus petition in the Circuit Court. In it, he alleges, among other things, prosecutorial misconduct and maintains that the court was deceived by false or withheld information. He characterizes this legally as “Fraud on the Court.” These allegations are Riechmann’s account, not court findings.
September/October 2024
The order denying the habeas corpus petition was entered in the court record with a date of September 25, 2024. The further documented sequence, however, raises questions about the timing: on October 11, a court hearing on the petition was still scheduled for October 23. According to materials Riechmann submitted on appeal, the denial order was not mailed until October 18; he says he received it on October 23.
Riechmann had signed his notice of voluntary withdrawal on October 17 and submitted it for mailing. He later argued that his withdrawal therefore occurred before the scheduled court hearing and that the dates associated with the denial were inconsistent. In his view, the documented sequence suggested that the decision did not actually become effective until October.
The courts did not accept that argument. Under the judicial view later applied, the order had already been filed with the clerk on September 25 and was therefore legally effective on that date. The later mailing did not change the date of the decision; the attempted withdrawal was therefore not treated as having occurred before the decision.
In his withdrawal notice and later filings, Riechmann also raised concerns about Judge David H. Young’s impartiality. He pointed to Young’s prior work in the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office and his past connection to Beth Sreenan and Kevin DiGregory, whose conduct was central to allegations Riechmann raised.
There has been no court finding that Judge Young was biased or that the denial order was backdated.
January to April 2025
Riechmann appeals both the denial of his petition and the denial of his attempted withdrawal. In April 2025, the Third DCA consolidates cases 3D2025-0018 and 3D2025-0102 under case number 3D2025-0018.
October 8, 2025
The Third DCA affirms the denial of the habeas petition. The court treats the appeal concerning the rejected withdrawal as a petition for a writ of certiorari and denies that as well.
November 2025
After the first mandate issued, Riechmann’s motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc was initially treated as improper because, based on the docket as it then appeared, it seemed to have been filed only after the mandate had issued.
January 30, 2026
The Third DCA finds that Riechmann had given his motion for rehearing to a prison official for mailing on October 21, 2025 — not on November 4, when it was received by the court. Under the mailbox rule applicable to prisoner filings, the motion was therefore timely. The court withdrew its November 3 mandate, vacated its November 5 order, and reinstated the motion for rehearing.
March to May 2026
The State’s response, a motion to supplement the record on appeal, Riechmann’s objection concerning service, and his Reply and Amended Reply followed.
In March 2026, the Florida Supreme Court dismissed the parallel mandamus proceeding SC2025-1971 as moot. This was not a new decision on guilt, innocence, or the individual evidentiary issues.
June 2026
On June 4, 2026, the Third DCA denied rehearing and rehearing en banc. The mandate followed on June 26, 2026. That ended this regular phase of the appeal before the Third DCA.
Docket 3D2025-0018
The overview above shows only the major milestones. The actual procedural history consisted of many more individual steps.
The detailed docket timeline intentionally includes formal procedural steps as well. A substantial portion of the most recent appellate proceeding concerned deadlines, service, completeness of the record on appeal, jurisdictional questions, extensions of time, and other procedural matters.
The length of the timeline therefore also illustrates how much of the proceeding dealt with such matters. It does not mean that guilt, innocence, or the evidence was reconsidered on the merits with every individual entry.
The following timeline reflects the publicly documented events in the most recent appellate proceeding. The proceeding originally maintained separately as 3D2025-0102 was consolidated with 3D2025-0018 in April 2025.
Mandate – Mandate
The Third District Court of Appeal issues its mandate following completion of the rehearing proceedings in consolidated cases 3D2025-0018 and 3D2025-0102. The Miami-Dade County Clerk is directed to conduct any further proceedings in accordance with the appellate court’s opinion, the applicable rules of procedure, and Florida law. This concludes this regular appellate stage before the Third DCA.
Misc. Events – West Publishing
Administrative “West Publishing” docket entry following completion of the appellate proceedings. The entry records a publication or transmission event and does not constitute a new decision on the merits.
Order – Order Denying Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
The Third DCA denies Dieter’s Motion for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc after considering the rehearing motion, the State’s March 27, 2026 response, and Dieter’s May 6 and May 8 replies.
Response – Amended Reply
Dieter files an amended reply correcting a typographical error: the intended rule reference is Fla. R. App. P. 9.210(c), not 9.220(c). The amended reply reiterates his arguments about unaddressed structural issues, judgments without notice, and alleged fraud on the court.
Response – Reply
Dieter files a reply to the State’s response and requests a copy of the supplemented record. He argues that the DCA did not address eight structural and procedural issues from his Initial Brief, should have required an answer brief, and failed to examine his fraud-on-the-court arguments on the merits.
Response – Response to Notice of Service Issue
The State responds to Dieter’s service notice, stating that it mailed the response on March 27, 2026 with a legal-mail tracking number and that, in light of Dieter’s notice, it is sending another copy of the response and the motion to supplement the record.
Notice – Notice of Failure of Service
Dieter Riechmann notifies the Third DCA that he has not received the State’s court-ordered response to his rehearing motion. He requests service of all orders, extensions, and filings and invokes Rule 2.516.
Order – Order on Motion to Supplement Record
The Third DCA grants the State’s motion to supplement the record on appeal and adds the document filed in the lower tribunal on or about August 19, 2024.
Motions Relating to Records – Motion to Supplement Record
The State moves to supplement the appellate record with the State’s response filed in the lower tribunal on or about August 19, 2024, arguing that it had been omitted from the record and was necessary for complete review.
Response – Response to Rehearing Motion
The State asks the Third DCA to deny Dieter’s Motion for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, arguing that it reargues issues already decided; that the substantive claims are procedurally barred, successive, and meritless; and that the DCA was not required to address every point in a written opinion.
Order – Supreme Court Order
The Supreme Court of Florida dismisses mandamus case SC2025-1971 as moot, apparently because the Third DCA had already reinstated the rehearing motion. The order states that no rehearing will be considered.
Order – Order Reinstating Rehearing Motion
The Third DCA finds that Dieter’s Motion for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc was timely under the mailbox rule because it was placed with prison officials for mailing on October 21, 2025. The court withdraws the November 3, 2025 mandate, vacates the November 5, 2025 order, reinstates the rehearing motion, and gives the State 60 days to respond.
Letter – Acknowledgment Letter
The Supreme Court of Florida acknowledges receipt of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Appendix. The matter is opened as Original Proceedings - Writ - Mandamus under SC2025-1971, with lower tribunal references to 3D25-0018, 3D25-0102, and F87-42355.
Petition – Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Dieter Riechmann petitions the Supreme Court of Florida for mandamus relief against the Third DCA, seeking reinstatement and consideration of his Motion for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. He relies mainly on the mailbox rule, the October 21, 2025 prison-mail date, alleged procedural errors, and the claimed exceptional importance of the case.
Order – Order on Motion for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
The motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc was stricken as unauthorized because it was filed after the mandate. A mandate means the appellate court has fully completed the case and returned it to the lower court; after that point, no further motions can be filed.
Post-Disposition Motions – Motion for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
Motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc: Dieter Riechmann asks the court to reconsider its decision regarding his habeas petition and the denial of his request to withdraw it. He alleges serious due process violations and claims “fraud on the court,” meaning intentional deception or manipulation of the judicial process by prosecutors or investigators that would have improperly influenced the outcome.
Order – Article I, Section 16(b)(10)b., Fla. Const. Order - Time Expired
The court states that the constitutional deadline for handling the appeal had already expired before the case was filed, and therefore the required time limits could not be met.
Mandate – Mandate
Court issues final mandate and returns the case for further proceedings. The Court of Appeal finalizes the case, confirming its decision and directing the lower court to proceed in accordance with the appellate opinion.
Disposition by Opinion – Affirmed
Court affirms denial of the habeas petition and rejects second appeal. The Court of Appeal fully upheld the denial of Dieter Riechmann’s habeas corpus petition and dismissed the second appeal (concerning withdrawal of the petition) as not appealable, ultimately denying it as a certiorari petition.
Order – Order on Motion To Dismiss
The court denies the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the motion is now moot.
Brief – Initial Brief
Filing of Dieter Riechmann’s “Initial Brief” in appeal case 3D2025-0018. The brief outlines the case history and multiple arguments asserting that the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus was unconstitutional.
Order – Order on Motion for Extension of Time
The court grants Dieter Riechmann an additional 30 days to file the initial brief; further extensions will be disfavored and only allowed under exceptional circumstances.
Motions Other – Motion
Motion for extension of time: Dieter Riechmann requests an additional 30 days to file the initial brief because he was transferred for medical procedures and currently has no access to his legal materials.
Record – Supplemental Record
A supplemental record on appeal was filed: The Supplemental Record on Appeal for case 3D2025-0018 was officially submitted, adding additional documents from the original proceedings in the Circuit Court.
Order – Order on Motion to Supplement Record
The court grants Dieter Riechmann’s July 9, 2025 motion to supplement the record. The submitted documents are now officially added to the appellate record.
Motions Relating to Records – Motion to Supplement Record
Dieter Riechmann requests to supplement the appendix because three pages (50–52) of his original habeas petition were omitted from the official record. He asks the court to add these missing pages to the appendix.
Order – Order on Motion for Extension of Time
The court grants Dieter Riechmann a single 50-day extension to file his initial brief. His request to supplement the record with the appendix is denied, and the submitted appendix is stricken.
Motions Extensions – Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Initial Brief
Dieter Riechmann requests additional time because he received the Court’s order very late due to a medical transfer. Important mail was forwarded with significant delay. He asks the Court to accept his appendix as timely filed and to grant him an additional 50 days to submit his main brief.
Record – Appendix
Appendix to Dieter Riechmann’s initial brief. He submits supporting documents for his appeal challenging the denial of his habeas corpus petition based on “manifest injustice.”
Notice – Notice
Notice to the Court: Due to medical transfer between May 15 and May 29, 2025, Dieter Riechmann may not have received mail sent by the Court. If anything was mailed during that period, he requests that a new copy be sent, as mail forwarding within the prison system is very slow.
Order – Order
The court denies the request to stay the appeal because both appeals were already consolidated. The motion to correct and supplement the record must be refiled with a complete appendix. New deadlines for briefs are set. The State’s request to dismiss the appeal as untimely is deferred and will be decided later.
Response – Reply
Dieter Riechmann submits his reply to the State’s motion, arguing that his appeals should not be dismissed. He explains why his notice of appeal was timely, points to irregular actions by the trial court, and requests that the appellate record be fully corrected and supplemented.
Order – Order on Motion for Extension of Time
The Court grants Dieter Riechmann a seven-day extension to file his response to the April 24, 2025 order. The Court notes that additional extensions will only be granted under exceptional circumstances.
Motions Extensions – Motion for Extension of Time to File Response
Dieter Riechmann requests an additional seven days to file his response to the State’s motion to dismiss his appeal. He explains that he received the court’s order late due to prison mail processing, and that limited prison resources (few computers, limited law library access, weekends closed) leave him with insufficient time to prepare the required legal response.
Order – Order on Motion to Stay
The Court consolidates Dieter Riechmann’s two separate appeals into one (under case no. 3D2025-0018). The Court orders him to explain within ten days why both appeals should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The State argues that the withdrawal-denial order is not appealable and that the habeas denial was appealed too late.
Motions Other – Motion To Stay
Dieter Riechmann requests that the appeal be stayed until the Record on Appeal is corrected and supplemented, and until the separate case about his “Notice to Withdraw” (3D2025-0102) is resolved. He explains that he cannot file his brief with the current incomplete record and that the withdrawal issue should be decided first.
Motions Other – Motion To Dismiss
The State of Florida asks the court to dismiss both of Dieter Riechmann’s appeals. The State argues that the appellate court lacks jurisdiction because the notices of appeal were filed too late and one of the orders is not appealable. Therefore, his motions to supplement or correct the record should also be denied.
Order – Order to File Response
The court orders the State of Florida to file a response within 20 days to Dieter Riechmann’s Motion to Correct and Supplement the Record.
Order – Order on Motion for Extension of Time
The court grants Dieter Riechmann a 30-day extension to file his initial brief, noting that multiple extensions are discouraged. The court also strikes his prior notice about supplementing the record, but allows him to file a proper motion to correct the record.
Record – Appendix
Dieter Riechmann files an appendix in support of his Motion to Correct and Supplement the Record. The appendix is submitted under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.220 and accompanies his request to correct and supplement the appellate record.
Motions Relating to Records – Motion to Amend/Correct Record
Dieter Riechmann requests that the Record on Appeal be corrected and supplemented. He explains that several important documents are missing or incomplete in the official record and that some docket entries contain irregular or contradictory dates. He asks the court to add the missing materials, fix the errors, and clarify the actual timeline so that his appeal can be reviewed fairly.
Motions Extensions – Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Initial Brief
Dieter Riechmann requests an extension of time to file his brief(s). He explains that he never received a response to his request asking whether his two issues should be treated as separate appeals. He also received an incomplete and incorrect appellate record. He asks for additional time until the court clarifies the issue and the record is corrected.
Notice – Notice
Dieter Riechmann notifies the court that he is preparing a motion to correct and supplement the appellate record and expects to file it by March 20, 2025.
Order – Order
The court notifies that the deadline for Dieter Riechmann’s “Initial Brief” has expired. If the brief is not filed within 20 days, the appeal may be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Record – Record on Appeal
The court prepares the official “Record on Appeal” for Dieter Riechmann’s case, listing the documents from the original trial court file that are being sent to the appellate court, along with the names of the involved parties.
Misc. Events – Miscellaneous Docket Entry
Dieter Riechmann informs the Third District Court of Appeal that he has submitted copies of his two appeals (the denial of his habeas corpus petition and the denial of his request to withdraw that petition). He requests that the two matters be assigned separate case numbers and that the withdrawal issue be addressed first, as it is supported by many precedents and would reduce unnecessary work for the court, the Attorney General, and himself.
Notice – Amended Notice of Appeal
Dieter Riechmann submits an amended appeal challenging the denial of his habeas corpus petition. He again explains that the dates and filings by the judge and the clerk are inconsistent and irregular. He also requests that this appeal be handled separately from his appeal regarding the denied request to withdraw the habeas petition. The filing is considered timely because it was handed to prison officials on January 10, 2025.
Notice – Notice of Appearance
The State of Florida announces that Assistant Attorney General Linda Katz has formally entered an appearance as counsel in appeal case 3D25-18. All future filings and documents should be served to her.
Notice – Notice of Appeal
Filing confirmation: A “Notice of Appeal” for case 3D2025-0018 has been officially filed and certified by the court.
Letter – Acknowledgment Letter
Acknowledgment from the Third District Court of Appeal that Dieter Riechmann’s appeal against the State of Florida has been received and is being processed under case number 3D2025-0018 as an appeal from the denial of a habeas corpus petition; also includes information on fees, e-filing, and how to contact the court.
Notice – Notice of Appeal
Dieter Riechmann files an appeal with the Third District Court of Appeal challenging the denial of his habeas corpus petition. He raises concerns about irregular and conflicting dates: the denial is recorded as 09/25/2024, but the order was not sent until 10/18/2024 and he did not receive it until 10/23/2024. His notice to voluntarily withdraw the petition and later motions for rehearing were ignored or not properly ruled on. He asserts that the appeal is timely under the mailbox rule because he handed it to prison officials on 12/20/2024.
Context
Legal terms such as rehearing and mandate can easily create the impression that every issue in the case was fully decided again. The documents support a more nuanced conclusion.
The regular appellate phase described here before the Third DCA ended with the June 26, 2026 mandate. That does not automatically mean that every conceivable future legal avenue is foreclosed.
The Third DCA found that Riechmann had given his motion to a prison official for mailing on October 21, 2025. Under the mailbox rule applicable to prisoner filings, the motion was therefore timely.
No. The mandamus proceeding there, SC2025-1971, was dismissed as moot in March 2026. This was not a new decision on guilt, innocence, or the individual evidentiary issues.
The June 4 order states that the motion for rehearing, the State’s response, and Riechmann’s Reply and Amended Reply were considered. It does not, however, contain a new detailed, issue-by-issue analysis of the evidentiary questions presented on this page and on “Questions About the Conviction.”
Court orders tell only part of the story. Dieter Riechmann has lived in prison for nearly four decades. In personal messages, he writes about his work in the prison library, books and memories of his earlier life — and about how he imagines a possible future in freedom.
Dieter TodayRead More
The most recent decisions are only one part of a procedural history spanning nearly four decades. The other pages provide context for the disputed issues and the underlying documents.
The Case →This page summarizes the documented procedural status reflected in the materials reviewed here and does not claim to be exhaustive. It is not legal advice. The original documents and court decisions control.