IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
v. Appeal No. CRC 06-12 APANO
Opinion filed _________________.
Appeal from a judgment and sentence
imposed by the Pinellas County Court
Traffic Magistrate Julie Milham
Heather Rose Cramer, Esq.
Attorney for appellant
ORDER AND OPINION
MATTER is before the Court on the defendant, Matthew Guanciale’s,
appeal from a judgment and sentence imposed by the
The defendant was convicted of violating §316.2397(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). That statute reads: “No person shall drive or move or cause to be moved any vehicle or equipment upon any highway within this state with any lamp or device thereon showing or displaying a red or blue light visible from directly in front thereof … .” A police officer testified that when he saw the defendant traveling down the road he could see a red light coming from the front of the defendant’s motorcycle. The defendant contended that the red lights were not visible from the front; they were only visible from the side.
Whether or not the defendant violated the statute is, in this particular case, a question of fact. The statute clearly states that a red light cannot be visible from the front of a vehicle. The police officer testified that there was a red light visible from the front of the defendant’s motorcycle, but the defendant testified that there was not. When faced with a conflict in the evidence the trier of fact may determine which testimony to believe. The hearing officer in this case believed the police officer. It is not for this appellate court to disturb this factual finding. See e.g., Slater v. State, 310 So.2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the judgment and sentence is affirmed.
AND ORDERED in Chambers at
David A. Demers
Robert J. Morris, Jr.
Irene H. Sullivan
cc: Heather Rose Cramer, Esq.
Traffic Magistrate Milham