Walden v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Walden v. State

137 So. 3d 1168, 2014 WL 1373827, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 5158

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 9, 2014

DocketNo. 4D12-503

StatusPublished

This text of 137 So. 3d 1168 (Walden 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

Walden v. State, 137 So. 3d 1168, 2014 WL 1373827, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 5158 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jakall Walden appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw plea, as well as his two convictions for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer and three convictions for high speed or wanton fleeing, claiming that such convictions violate double jeopardy. We affirm the trial court’s rulings.

With regard to the multiple convictions for high speed or wanton fleeing, the record does not clearly indicate the number of officers and authorized law enforcement patrol vehicles that were involved in the chase. Because the record does not sufficiently demonstrate the necessary facts that we would need to resolve the issue, we affirm. See Boress v. State, 902 So.2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) (“[T]he decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.”)).

Affirmed.

WARNER, CONNER and FORST JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jakall Walden appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw plea, as well as his two convictions for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer and three convictions for high speed or wanton fleeing, claiming that such convictions violate double jeopardy. We affirm the trial court’s rulings.

With regard to the multiple convictions for high speed or wanton fleeing, the record does not clearly indicate the number of officers and authorized law enforcement patrol vehicles that were involved in the chase. Because the record does not sufficiently demonstrate the necessary facts that we would need to resolve the issue, we affirm. See Boress v. State, 902 So.2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) (“[T]he decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.”)).

Affirmed.

WARNER, CONNER and FORST JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 So. 3d 1168, 2014 WL 1373827, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 5158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walden-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack