ARMANDO HERNANDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ARMANDO HERNANDEZ, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
824 So. 2d 997
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2002)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
As the trial court has certified after unsuccessful efforts to re-establish the record under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4), and as the state agrees, material omissions in the transcript of testimony make meaningful appellate review of the trial below impossible. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for new trial is granted. See Delap v. State, 350 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1977); Murphy v. State, 789 So. 2d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), and cases cited. The conviction and sentence below are reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Motion granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aramark Unif. & Career Apparel, Inc. v. Easton, 894 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2004)…376.30-376.319 shall be deemed to be cumulative and not exclusive.” This language evidences an intent in section 376.313(3) to create an entirely new cause of action cumulative to the common law. See St. Angelo v. Healthcare & Ret. Corp. of America, 824 So. 2d 997, 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“A ‘cumulative remedies’ clause in a statute usually does not supersede other common law remedies.”); cf. [*26] Flo-Sun, Inc. v. Kirk, 783 So. 2d 1029, 1036 (Fla.2001) (concluding that interpreting a cumulative remedies cla…
-
Katina Paese v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Delap v. State, 350 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1977)
- Johnson v. State, 789 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)