County Traffic Court:
TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS --- Record showed sufficient evidence to convict the
defendant of speeding, and hearing officer properly allowed the defendant to
present his case. Judgment and sentence affirmed. Samson
v. State, No. CRC 06-49 APANO, (
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING
AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
JOHN HUGH SAMSON
v. Appeal No. CRC 06-49 APANO
††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††† UCN522006AP0049XXXXCR
Opinion filed _________________.
Appeal from a judgment and sentence
entered by the Pinellas County Court
Hearing Officer Herbert E. Langford, Jr.
Connolly C. McArthur, Esquire
Attorney for appellant
Heather Rose Cramer, Esquire
Attorney for appellee
ORDER AND OPINION
MATTER is before the Court on the defendant, John H. Samsonís, appeal from a
judgment and sentence entered against him by the
††††††††††† The defendant claims that the hearing officer denied him due process by curtailing his cross-examination of the police officer and not allowing him to fully present his case. Although trial courts must be ever-mindful of allowing litigants to have their day in court, the presiding judicial officer is also required to maintain order and decorum in the proceedings. †See Canon 3 (B)(3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. This Court has thoroughly reviewed the transcript of the proceeding, and finds that the defendantís due process rights were not violated. The transcript reflects that the defendant, acting pro se, was argumentative with both the hearing officer and the police officer, mixed his argument and testimony with the cross-examination portion of the police officer, was admittedly redundant, and lapsed into irrelevant matters. In response to this behavior, the hearing officer discharged his responsibility to control the proceedings. This was done without the defendant being denied his opportunity to cross-examine the police officer or present his case. The transcript shows that the hearing officer understood the arguments the defendant was attempting to make.
††††††††††† The defendant also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of guilt. A review of the record, however, reveals that the officer testified that he determined by the pacing method that the defendant was traveling 60 mph in a 45 mph zone, and then increased his speed to 70 mph in a 55 mph zone. Although the defendant attempted to cross-examine the officer on his testimony, he was ineffective. The defendant fails to cite any authority requiring the officer to testify in detail about the information that the defendant was attempting to obtain.
††††††††††† IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the judgment and sentence is affirmed.
AND ORDERED in
††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††† Linda R. Allan
††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †† Circuit Court Judge
††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††† R. Timothy Peters†
†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Circuit Court Judge
††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††† John A. Schaefer
††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††† Circuit Court Judge
cc:††††††† Heather Rose Cramer, Esquire
††††††††††† Connolly C. McArthur, Esquire
††††††††††† Hearing Officer Herbert E. Langford, Jr.