Hanson v. State

92 So. 3d 288, 2012 WL 2864388, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11394
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 13, 2012·No. No. 5D11-3109·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The evidence presented in this case was legally insufficient to establish that the [289] pursuing officer had “agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle” as required by section 316.1935(2), Florida Statutes (2010). See Slack v. State, 30 So.3d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Gorsuch v. State, 797 So.2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

However, because the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser included offense set forth in section 316.1935(1) and the jury necessarily found that the elements of such lesser offense were proven, we remand, pursuant to section 924.34, Florida Statutes (2010), for the trial court to enter a judgment of conviction for that offense. See Slack; Sanner v. State, 63 So.3d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Erskine v. State, 23 So.3d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

EVANDER and COHEN, JJ. and MONACO, D.A., Senior Judge, concur.

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

Hanson v. State, 92 So. 3d 288, 2012 WL 2864388, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11394 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

92 So. 3d 288 (Hanson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barry Edward Ellis v. State of Florida
258 So. 3d 491 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)