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.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
THE STATE OF
v. Appeal No. CRC 03-23 APANO
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
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Michael Jackson’s appeal from a
judgment and sentence entered by the
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 (
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
charged under either statute.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at
John A. Schaefer
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
cc: James Thomas, Esq.
Michael Zas, Esq.