Gervin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gervin v. State

920 So. 2d 733, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1640, 2006 WL 304526

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 2006

DocketNo. 5D04-1838

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 920 So. 2d 733 (Gervin v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gervin v. State, 920 So. 2d 733, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1640, 2006 WL 304526 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PALMER, J.

David Leon Gervin (defendant) appeals his judgment and sentence which were entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of committing the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances and inflicting serious bodily injury.¹ Meaningful appellate review of this matter is not possible because the trial transcript is incomplete and, since this error was not caused by the defendant, we are constrained to reverse the defendant’s judgment and sentence and remand this matter to the trial court for a new trial.

The defendant appealed his judgment and sentence contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial made during the trial. Our review of the record revealed that the trial transcript did not include either the defendant’s motion for a mistrial or the objec[734]*734tionable testimony related thereto. We relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court in an attempt to allow the parties to reconstruct the trial transcript. On remand, two hearings were held in the trial court in an attempt to reconstruct the record but such attempts were unsuccessful.

If a defendant is prejudiced by the absence of a portion of the trial transcript through no fault of his own, and the missing transcript is necessary for a complete review of the case, the defendant is entitled to receive a new trial. Pepitone v. State, 846 So.2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accord Greer v. S.V.T., Inc., 913 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Meaningful appellate review of the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a mistrial is not possible based on the record provided to us. Therefore, the defendant’s judgment and sentence must be reversed, and this matter remanded for a new trial.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SAWAYA and MONACO, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PALMER, J.

David Leon Gervin (defendant) appeals his judgment and sentence which were entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of committing the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances and inflicting serious bodily injury.¹ Meaningful appellate review of this matter is not possible because the trial transcript is incomplete and, since this error was not caused by the defendant, we are constrained to reverse the defendant’s judgment and sentence and remand this matter to the trial court for a new trial.

The defendant appealed his judgment and sentence contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial made during the trial. Our review of the record revealed that the trial transcript did not include either the defendant’s motion for a mistrial or the objec[734]*734tionable testimony related thereto. We relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court in an attempt to allow the parties to reconstruct the trial transcript. On remand, two hearings were held in the trial court in an attempt to reconstruct the record but such attempts were unsuccessful.

If a defendant is prejudiced by the absence of a portion of the trial transcript through no fault of his own, and the missing transcript is necessary for a complete review of the case, the defendant is entitled to receive a new trial. Pepitone v. State, 846 So.2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accord Greer v. S.V.T., Inc., 913 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Meaningful appellate review of the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a mistrial is not possible based on the record provided to us. Therefore, the defendant’s judgment and sentence must be reversed, and this matter remanded for a new trial.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SAWAYA and MONACO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

920 So. 2d 733, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1640, 2006 WL 304526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gervin-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack