DANIEL COOPER VERNON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
DANIEL COOPER VERNON, PETITIONER,
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
558 So. 2d 535
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1990)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
At petitioner’s implied consent hearing held pursuant to Section 322.261, Florida Statutes (1987), the county court placed the burden of proof on petitioner, and ultimately sustained the suspension of petitioner’s driver’s license. The circuit court affirmed. After petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari, the respondent confessed error, stating that the burden of proof in a section 322.261 hearing should be on the state. We therefore grant the petition for writ of certiorari and remand this case for further consistent proceedings.
ERVIN, ZEHMER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Farley, 633 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…the Respondent’s burden to prove substantial compliance with the rule or the test should not be admitted into evidence. The Petitioner does not bear the burden of proof that he did not take something by mouth or regurgitate. Ver [*71] non v. State, 558 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). 7. In this case, there was no evidence to conclude, as the hearing officer did, that the seventeen (17) minute period was substantial compliance with Rule 10D-42.-024(1)(e). See State v. Sharp, 47 Fla. Supp.2d 84 (7th Cir.Ct.19…1 / 2