EMILIO CABAN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES
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.
Emilio Caban appealed a lower court order denying his motion to vacate judgment and raise a constitutional challenge to Florida Statute § 316.0741(3) for the first time in a motion for arrest of judgment. The appellate court affirmed, holding that while traffic hearing officers can consider constitutional challenges in motions for arrest of judgment, Caban's substantive arguments lacked merit.
A traffic hearing officer has the ability to review constitutional challenges to statutes raised in motions for arrest of judgment, as such motions are an appropriate vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute. However, the lower court's order was affirmed because Caban's substantive constitutional arguments lacked merit.
[1] A motion for arrest of judgment is an appropriate procedural vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of a statute a defendant is accused of violating.
[2] A judicial officer has the authority to review constitutional challenges to statutes when properly raised in a motion for arrest of judgment.
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“a traffic hearing officer has the ability to review constitutional challenges to statutes raised in motions for arrest of judgment”
Establishes the core holding that constitutional challenges may be considered via motions for arrest of judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCaban was charged with violating § 316.0741(3), Florida Statutes. At his traffic hearing, he did not raise any constitutional challenge to the statute…
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 Motion In Arrest Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
EMILIO CABAN, Appellant,
V.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES Appellee. / APPELLATE DIVISION (CIVIL): AY CASE NO: 2016AP900020 L.T. NO.: 2015TR106583
Opinion filed: March 2, 2017
Appeal from the County Court in and for Palm Beach County, Traffic Hearing Officer Marshall Osofsky
For Appellant:
Emilio Caban, pro se 4438 Colony View Drive Lake Worth, FL 33463 [email protected]
For Appellee:
Natalia Costea, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 1011 N.W. 111th Avenue Miami, FL 33172 [email protected]
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Emilio Caban, appeals the lower court's Order Denying Motion to Vacate and/or for Arrest of Judgment; or in the Alternative, Motion for Rehearing ("Order"). Caban argues the lower court erred because its Order refused to consider Caban's argument regarding
the constitutionality of section 316.0741(3), Florida Statutes, on its merits. In its Order, the traffic hearing officer below determined he could not consider Caban's argument because it had not been raised prior to or at his final hearing. Caban's argument was made for the first time in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Traffic Court 6.540, which allows for motions in arrest of judgment.
The Court writes only to note that a traffic hearing officer has the ability to review constitutional challenges to statutes raised in motions for arrest of judgment. See, e.g., State v. Nichols, 892 So. 2d 1221, 1224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (noting a motion for arrest of judgment is an appropriate vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of a statute a defendant is accused of violating). Because the Court finds no merit to the substantive arguments raised in Caban's motion, though, the lower court's Order is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
GILLEN, ROWE, and HAFELE, JJ., concur. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
EMILIO CABAN, Appellant,
V.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Appellee.
APPELLATE DIVISION (CIVIL): AY CASE NO: 2016AP900020 L.T. NO.: 2015TR106583
Appeal from County Court in and for Palm Beach, Florida; Traffic Hearing Officer Marshall Osofsky Appealed: February 24, 2016
/ DATE OF PANEL: FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PANEL JUDGES: GILLEN, ROWE, AND HAFELE AFFIRMED/REVERSED/OTHER: AFFIRMED PER CURIAM OPINION/DECISION BY: PER CURIAM
DATE CONCURRING: 02/17/17 Dan 2/271/17 ) DISSENTING: ) With/Without Opinion ) CONCURRING SPECIALLY: ) With/Without Opinion ) ) ) J. J. J.) ) ) ) ) J. J. J.) 3/1/17 ) ) ) J.) ) ) J.) J.)