STATE
v.
GOODWYN
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.
Cassie Goodwyn appealed her convictions for careless driving and driving under the influence. The court reversed the careless driving conviction due to insufficient evidence but affirmed the DUI conviction based on substantial evidence.
The careless driving conviction is reversed due to insufficient evidence because no one observed the manner in which the appellant drove. The DUI conviction is affirmed because there is ample substantial evidence that she was in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating beverages.
“the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the careless driving conviction as no one saw the manner in which she drove”
The court's basis for reversing the careless driving conviction due to lack of eyewitness evidence regarding her driving behavior.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police officer observed Goodwyn's 1960 Ford off the roadway in a gulley with slight damage to the front end. Goodwyn was seated alone behind the ste…
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 Careless Driving cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before me upon the appeal of Cassie Goodwyn from her convictions in the metropolitan court in and for Dade County, for careless driving — causing an accident — in violation of section 30-17 (a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, and for being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of section 30-15 (a) of the code. She questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain both convictions.
*10After reading the record on appeal and the briefs of the respective parties, hearing oral argument and being fully advised in the premises, this court finds that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the careless driving conviction as no one saw the manner in which she drove.
The police officer testified that he observed a 1960 Ford off of the roadway and the appellant was seated behind the wheel of the car. There was a slight bit of damage to the front end of her car, the vehicle appeared to have run off the road into a gulley. The car lights were on and the engine was running. The appellant was seated behind the steering wheel alone in her car. She was in a state of extreme intoxication. There is ample substantial evidence to sustain the conviction for being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating beverage. State v. Bailey, 15 Fla. Supp. 60; Holder v. County of Dade, Criminal Appeal No. 4980.
Therefore, it is considered, ordered and adjudged that the careless driving conviction is reversed and the conviction for being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating beverage is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Benyei, 508 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
-
State v. Baker, 27 Fla. Supp. 136 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1966)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Bailey, 15 Fla. Supp. 60 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1959)