County Traffic Court: TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS – Specific subsection of statute not cited on Uniform Traffic Citation not a defense to an improper U-turn charge where the UTC noted the statute number violated, a box on the form was entitled Violation of traffic control device and “Posted, No U-turn” written in comments section. – Judgment affirmed. Jackson v. State, No. 03-23 APANO (Fla. 6th Cir. App.Ct. Jan. 9, 2004).

 

 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY

 

 

MICHAEL JACKSON

 

            Appellant,

 

v.                                                                                                                                                                   Appeal No. CRC 03-23 APANO

                             UCN522003AP000023XXXXCR

 

STATE OF FLORIDA

 

            Appellee.

______________________________/

 

 

Opinion filed ___________________.

 

Appeal from a judgment and sentence

entered by the Pinellas County Court

Hearing Officer Bruce Taylor

 

James Thomas, Esq.

Attorney for appellant

 

Michael Zas, Esq.

Attorney for appellee

 

ORDER AND OPINION

 

 

            THIS MATTER is before the Court on Michael Jackson’s appeal from a judgment and sentence entered by the Pinellas County Traffic Court. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the judgment and sentence.

            As pointed out by the appellee, the appellant’s case suffers from the lack of a trial transcript. The burden of proving error in the court below, and that the error was preserved for appellate review, is on the appellant. Failure to provide a trial transcript makes it extremely difficult for the appellant to carry his burden in this case. See National Enterprises, Inc. v. Foodtech Hialeh, Inc., 777 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

            Nevertheless, even if the appellant had provided a trial transcript in this case, the judgment and sentence would be affirmed. A review of the appellant’s brief indicates that the basis for relief is that the specific subsection of the statute was not cited in the Uniform Traffic Citation. The appellant argues that this prevented him from adequately understanding the charge against him. The record shows that the appellant was charged with violating §316.074, Fla. Stat. (2002) because he made a U-turn where a posted sign specifically prohibited U-turns. The Uniform Traffic Citation indicates the particular statute that was violated, §316.074, and has the box entitled “Violation of Traffic Control Device” checked. Under the comments section is written: “Posted “No U-turn.” This Court finds that this is sufficient notice to inform the defendant of the offense charged. The fact that the specific subsection of the statute is not written on the citation is not a sufficient defense in this case.

The appellant also raises the argument that he should have been charged under §316.1515, Fla. Stat. (2002), the specific statute that prohibits improper U-turns. The fact that the defendant could have been charged under that statute does not negate his judgment and sentence for violating §316.074, failure to obey a traffic control device. When the defendant’s conduct is proscribed by more than one statue, the defendant may


be charged under either statute. See State v. Copher, 395 So.2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

            IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

            DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this _____ day of  January, 2004.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                    _________________________

                                                                                                John A. Schaefer

                                                                                    Circuit Judge, Appellate Division

 

cc:   James Thomas, Esq.

 

        Michael Zas, Esq.