KENDRIA WALKER
v.
MELDON KEYON BULLOCK
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Kendria Walker appealed a final judgment for protection against stalking issued against her. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that without a trial transcript, the court must presume the trial court's findings were supported by competent substantial evidence.
The appellate court affirmed the judgment because Walker failed to provide a trial transcript or statement of evidence, requiring the court to presume the trial court's rulings were correct and supported by competent substantial evidence.
[1] An appellate court must presume a trial court's rulings are correct and supported by competent substantial evidence when the appellant fails to provide a transcript or st…
[2] Without a record of trial proceedings, an appellate court cannot properly resolve underlying factual issues to conclude that a trial court's judgment is not supported by…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence[.]”
Establishes the Applegate presumption that requires affirmance when appellant fails to provide trial transcript
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker was the subject of a final judgment for protection against stalking. Walker argued the evidence was insufficient to prove she engaged in stalki…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Factual Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979).
GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur. WARNER, J., concurs with opinion.
WARNER, J., concurring.
This is an appeal of a final judgment for protection against stalking. The issue appellant seeks to have this court review is whether the evidence was insufficient to prove that appellant engaged in any stalking activity, mainly because the texts which appellees contended were harassing did not come from appellant’s phone. This is quintessentially an issue which requires a review of the record. Appellant has not provided a transcript of the trial or a statement of evidence pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(5) (2019). Therefore, we must presume that the trial court’s rulings are correct and supported by competent substantial evidence. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate
court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence[.]”).
In a companion case against another party who sought an injunction against appellant for sending harassing texts, appellant did provide a record and successfully argued that the court erred in admitting text messages into evidence, because the messages could not be authenticated. See Walker v. Harley-Anderson, No. 4D19-2216, 2020 WL 5372302 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 9, 2020). The same might have been true in this case, but without a record of the proceedings, we are bound by the Applegate presumption that the court acted properly.