ONLINE SATELLITE COMMUNICATION, APPELLANT,
v.
GMPCS PERSONAL COMMUNICATION, INC., APPELLEE
Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979)
WARNER, GROSS and CONNER, JJ„ concur.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
We deny the motion for rehearing. Although appellant claims that the court took no evidence at the 8:45 hearing on the motion to quash service of process, the denial of which is the subject of this appeal, the order itself states:
THE COURT having considered the grounds for the Motion, taken testimony, heard argument and considered the applicable law, it is FOUND,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
Motion to Quash Service and To Dismiss Complaint is denied.
(Emphasis supplied).
As the form order states that testimony was taken, it would be incumbent on the parties to strike that from the order if that was not applicable. Otherwise, this court must assume that the order means what it says, and without a transcript we cannot determine whether the evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient or insufficient to support the order denying the motion. Thus, affir-mance based upon Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979), is proper.
WARNER, GROSS and CONNER, JJ„ concur.
We deny the motion for rehearing. Although appellant claims that the court took no evidence at the 8:45 hearing on the motion to quash service of process, the denial of which is the subject of this appeal, the order itself states:
THE COURT having considered the grounds for the Motion, taken testimony, heard argument and considered the applicable law, it is FOUND,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
Motion to Quash Service and To Dismiss Complaint is denied.
(Emphasis supplied).
As the form order states that testimony was taken, it would be incumbent on the parties to strike that from the order if that was not applicable. Otherwise, this court must assume that the order means what it says, and without a transcript we cannot determine whether the evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient or insufficient to support the order denying the motion. Thus, affir-mance based upon Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979), is proper. WARNER, GROSS and CONNER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Demeko Ladjuan Sims v. State, 260 So. 3d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Elliott Barnett v. State, 181 So. 3d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…So. 3d 648, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). In order to prevail on such a claim, an appellant must demonstrate “ineffectiveness on the face of the record, indisputable prejudice, and an inconceivable tactical explanation for the conduct.” Morales v. State, 170 So. 3d 63, 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Barnett relies on the decisions in Shedd v. State, 137 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), and Capiro v. State, 97 So. 3d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), to support his argument that counsel’s failure to request an alibi instruction c…
-
Knight v. State, 267 So. 3d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…onfidence there is no conceivable tactical explanation for the conduct of [defendant's] trial counsel" in allowing erroneous instruction to go to the jury). Reviewing courts should not countenance counsel's tactical inaction. See Morales v. State , 170 So. 3d 63, 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (allowing courts to consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only in those rare cases where there is "an inconceivable tactical explanation for the conduct"). We will not promote the possibility o…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)