County Traffic Court: TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS – Evidence supported conviction for speeding. Defendant’s claim that large, flashing, yellow school zone sign that hung overhead across entire three-lane street failed to give him notice he was entering a school zone was without merit. Judgment and sentence affirmed. Borel v. State, No. CRC 06-80 APANO, (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. June 25, 2007).

 

 

 

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 PINELLAS COUNTY

 

JONATHAN BOREL

 

            Appellant,

v.                                                                                                                                           Appeal No. CRC 06-80 APANO

                                                                              UCN522006AP00080XXXXCR

STATE OF FLORIDA

 

            Appellee.

___________________________/

 

Opinion filed ________________.

 

Appeal from a judgment and sentence

entered by the Pinellas County Court

Hearing officer Bruce Taylor

 

Marc N. Pelletier, Esquire

Attorney for appellant

 

Scott A. Headley, Equire

Attorney for appellee

ORDER AND OPINION

 

            THIS MATTER is before the Court on Jonathan Borel’s appeal from a judgment and sentence entered against him for Unlawful Speed in a School Zone. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the judgment and sentence.

            The defendant appears to be arguing that the extremely large, flashing, yellow,  school zone sign that hung overhead across the entire three-lane street next to Gibbs High School did not give him proper notice that he was entering a school zone with a lower speed limit. He asserts that the sign was “non-standard.” He completely fails, however, to specifically demonstrate what was “non-standard” about the sign. The record reflects that the defendant gave several documents to the hearing officer, but nowhere in the record or in his brief does the defendant ever explain how or why those documents supported his assertion that the sign was “non-standard.” He failed to show what particular section of the law the sign violated. Neither has the defendant demonstrated what the legal significance would be if the sign were “non-standard.” The defendant failed to meet his burden on his affirmative defense. Therefore, the judgment and sentence is affirmed.

            The defendant’s other contention --- that the hearing officer violated his due process rights by failing to specifically refute his arguments in writing --- is without merit. The trial court did not fail to rule on the defendant’s argument; it was just not persuaded by the argument.

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

            DONE AND ORDERED in Clearwater, Florida this _____ day of June, 2007.

 

 

 

                                                                        ______________________________

                                                                                          Linda R. Allan

                                                                                       Circuit Court Judge

 

 

 

                                                                        ________________________________

                                                                                          R. Timothy Peters 

                                                                                         Circuit Court Judge

 

 

 

                                                                        _________________________________

                                                                                             John A. Schaefer

                                                                                            Circuit Court Judge

 

cc:        Scott A. Headley, Esquire

 

            Marc N. Pelletier, Esquire

 

            Hearing Officer Bruce Taylor