LARRY SQUIRES, APPELLANT,
v.
CATHERINE DARLING, APPELLEE
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.
Larry Squires appealed an injunction for protection against repeat violence issued under Florida Statutes § 784.046, claiming he was denied due process by not having a full evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed because Squires failed to provide a proper record of the trial proceedings, preventing meaningful appellate review.
The court affirmed the injunction because Squires failed to provide a proper appellate record. Without a transcript or proper statement of proceedings, the appellate court could not review whether the trial court erred, and the presumption of correctness attached to the trial court's judgment was preserved.
[1] An appellate court cannot determine if a trial court erred without a transcript of the proceedings below.
[2] The presumption of correctness attaches to a trial court's judgment, and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.”
Establishes the fundamental standard governing appellate review and places the burden on Squires to prove error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCatherine Darling obtained an amended final judgment of injunction for protection against repeat violence against Larry Squires. The injunction prohib…
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 Appellate Record Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
Larry Squires, pro se appellant, appeals the amended final judgment of injunction for protection against repeat violence pursuant to section 784.046, Florida Statutes. He argues that the trial court committed error by depriving him of due process. We affirm.
Squires contends that the final judgment, which prohibited him from seeing, contacting, or being in the vicinity of Catherine Darling, was entered without Squires having had the opportunity to present evidence at a full evidentiary hearing. He argues this is a violation of sections 784.046(6)(c), 784.046(7)(d)(3)., Florida Statutes. The appellant claims error in the proceedings, yet he has not provided this court with a transcript of the proceedings below. Without a transcript, this court is unable to determine if there was error. Thus, the presumption of correctness which attached to the final judgment is preserved. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979). In Applegate, the supreme court held that:
In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error. When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. 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 or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.
Id. at 1152. Compare, Calle v. Calle, 625 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (affirming award of fees where record did not show lack of notice and opportunity to be heard).
This court ordered the appellant to provide a record of the proceedings pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4) if no court reporter was present at the hearing. Although the appellant provided a purportedly accurate statement of the proceedings, it was not served upon the appellee for corrections or amendments, as required by Rule 9.200(b)(4). The rule also requires that after being served upon the appellee for corrections or amendments, the statement “shall be submitted to the lower tribunal for settlement and approval.” Id. We have stricken the statement because the appellant did not comply with the rule. Because appellant has not met his burden of proving error, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Poling v. Palm Coast Abstract & Title, Inc., 882 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…Powers v. Powers, 831 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Compton v. Compton, 701 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). In the absence of a transcript, the trial court’s factual findings are presumed correct. Applegate, 377 So. 2d at 1152; Squires v. Darling, 834 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The exception is that an appellate court can reverse a judgment as a matter of law where an error of law is apparent on the face of the judgment. Hirsch v. Hirsch, 642 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2…
-
Barrera v. State (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2009)…ot overturn the hearing officer’s decision. Decisions of the trial court come to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness, and the burden falls on the Appellant to prove that an error was made by the hearing officer. Squires v. Darling, 834 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). This Court finds that Appellant has not met his burden of proving any error on the part of the Traffic Hearing Officer. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDER…
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Calle v. Noris Calle, 625 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)