County Civil Court: APPELLATE PROCEDURE Ė Record Ė To show error, Appellant must provide the appellate court with an adequate record of the trial proceedings; without a transcript of the hearing in this case and no fundamental error of law appearing on the face of the final judgment, Appellant could not overcome presumption of correctness of trial courtís decision and demonstrate reversible error. Judgment affirmed. Joseph Rainier v. State, No. 11-CF-001413-WS (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. July 20, 2012).
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY
††††††††††††††††††††††† Appellant,†††††††††††††††††††††††††††† UCN: †††††††††††† 512011CF001413A000WS
Appeal No:†† CRC1101413CFAWS
v.†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† L.T. No:†††††††† 10-0930RZXTWS
STATE OF FLORIDA, ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††
On appeal from County Court
Honorable Marc H. Salton
Joseph Rainier, Pro Se
Joseph A. Poblick, Esq.†
ORDER AND OPINION
Appellant raises three arguments on appeal. †First, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for a continuance.† Appellant next contends that he was not sufficiently provided requested discovery prior to trial.† Finally, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.† Since the record is insufficient, this Court can find no basis for overturning the trial courtís ruling.† The judgment must be affirmed, as set forth below.
On December 16, 2010, Appellant was issued a traffic citation for aggressive driving, contrary to Florida Statute 316.189(1) from Port Richey Officer J. Berrios.† According to the Uniform Traffic Citation, Appellant was speeding at 78 m.p.h. in a 45 m.p.h. zone on U.S. 19 and Pasco Way in his 1995 white Jaguar in the City of Port Richey.† Appellant also received a traffic citation for failing to use a turn signal, which was later dismissed.† On December 28, 2010, Appellant was informed by the Clerk that his appearance was required in court.†
On January 7, 2011, Appellant filed a demand for discovery, requesting discovery pursuant to Florida Traffic Court Rule 6.445.† On the same day, Appellant filed a demand for speedy trial and a motion to consolidate cases 0930RZX-3 and 0931RZX-4.† Appellant filed a plea of not guilty and a request for hearing before a county judge on January 13, 2011.† ††††††††††††
On February 23, 2011, a judgment infraction disposition was entered finding Appellant guilty.† Appellant was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $279.00 with $100.00 in fines.† Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on February 25, 2011.† Judge Salton granted Appellantís motion to stay order pending appeal on March 2, 2011.†
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In his appeal, Appellant raises three issues.† Appellant first argues that his motion for a continuance was improperly denied by the trial court.† Appellant also contends that he was not sufficiently provided requested discovery prior to trial.† Lastly, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.† Based on the appellate record presented to this court, we are precluded from overturning the trial courtís decision.†
The appellate record in this case consists of the docket, the traffic citation, the notice of insurance violation, Appellantís demand for discovery, Appellantís demand for speedy trial, Appellantís motion for case consolidation, Appellantís plea of not guilty and request for hearing, the judgment, Appellantís notice of appeal, Appellantís motion to stay the order pending appeal, and the trial courtís order granting Appellantís motion to stay.† Significantly, what is missing from the appellate record is a transcript of the proceedings below or any record that would substantiate Appellantís claims.† Since the decision of the trial court comes to this appellate court with a presumption of correctness, this court must presume that the trial courtís findings are correct unless Appellant can demonstrate that a reversible error was made.† Hirsch v. Hirsch, 642 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).† Although the absence of a transcript does not automatically preclude reversal, this court cannot find any error of law that is apparent on the face of the judgment or any other part of the record.† Without anything in the appellate record to conclusively determine that an error was made, this court is compelled to affirm the trial courtís decision.† See, Chirino v. Chirino, 710 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).† It is therefore,
††††††††††† ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the trial courtís judgment is hereby AFFIRMED.†
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at New Port Richey, Pasco County, Florida this 20th day of July 2012.
Original order entered on July 20, 2012 by Circuit Judges Stanley R. Mills, Daniel D. Diskey, and Patricia A. Muscarella.
Joseph Rainier, Pro Se
Joseph A. Poblick, Esq.† ††††††††† †††††††††††††††