HARRY BORESS, A/K/A MEL ABELE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
HARRY BORESS, A/K/A MEL ABELE, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
902 So. 2d 852
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2005)
Caution
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) (A trial court’s decision has the presumption of correctness, and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error, and without a record of the trial proceedings, the reviewing court cannot 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).
SAWAYA, C.J, THOMPSON and PLEUS, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Clark, 986 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…restee exited the vehicle at the officer’s direction, or whether the officer initiated contact with him while he remained in the car.” Thornton v. United, States, 541 U.S. 615, 620-21, 124 S.Ct. 2127, 158 L.Ed.2d 905 (2004); see also Slone v. State, 902 So. 2d 852, 853 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (recognizing the overruling of Thomas by Thornton). Instead, once a law enforcement officer determines that there is probable cause to arrest a recent occupant of a motor vehicle, “it is reasonable to allow officers to ensu…
-
State v. Waller, 918 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…the search of property lawfully seized and detained, in order to ensure that it is harmless, to secure valuable items (such as might be kept in a towed car), and to protect against false claims of loss or damage.”). The second case, Slone v. State, 902 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), presents factual circumstances different from those in the case at bar, because in Slone the defendant was not seen in his vehicle prior to arrest while Waller was seen in his vehicle and asked to exit his vehicle by the detecti…
-
Jakall Walden v. State, 137 So. 3d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…the number of officers and authorized law enforcement patrol vehicles that were involved in the chase. Because the record does not sufficiently demonstrate the necessary facts that we would need to resolve the issue, we affirm. See Boress v. State, 902 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) (“[T]he decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.”)). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)