State v. Tucker

STATE of Florida v. Daniel D. TUCKER

State v. Tucker, 832 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided: December 4, 2002
Docket: No. 2D01-4752
Judges: Covington, Davis, Salcines
Citations: 832 So. 2d 2182002 Fla. App. LEXIS 177912002 WL 31696775

Cited by 1 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court — Salcines

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

SALCINES, Judge.

The State of Florida appeals the trial court order which granted the motion to dismiss charges filed against Daniel D. Tucker for driving while his license was permanently revoked in violation of section 322.341, Florida Statutes (2001)-. We reverse.

Tucker’s motion to dismiss centered on the argument that pursuant to Sylvester v. State, 770 So.2d 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), a computerized driving record was insufficient to establish that a defendant’s driver’s license had been permanently revoked. It was asserted that dismissal was mandated because the State could not prove all the elements of the charged offense. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. At the time the trial court made its ruling, the Fifth District had not issued its en banc ruling which receded from the earlier panel decision in Sylvester. See Arthur v. State, 818 So.2d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

In a case directly on point, this court recently held that in a prosecution under section 322.341, “the State may make a *219 sufficient prima facie showing that the defendant’s license was permanently revoked and that he was given notice of the revocation by introducing a certified copy of the defendant’s driving record maintained by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.” State v. Miller, 830 So.2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal, reinstate the charge, and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

DAVIS and COVINGTON, JJ„ concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(holding that computerized driving record is sufficient to establish a prima facie case that defendant's driver's license has been revoked, and that indication of notice in record is sufficient evidence that the defendant received notice of the revocation)

Sorrell v. State, 855 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Cited by 1 case

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts1

Relies on it most ⓘ

Sorrell v. State855 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Most recent

Sorrell v. State855 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Arthur v. State, 818 So. 2d 589 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)	19
	Sylvester v. State, 770 So. 2d 249 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)	9
	State v. Miller, 830 So. 2d 214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)	3

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list