HENRY MCCONE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Henry McCone appealed three parking citation convictions. The appellate court affirmed the conviction in one case where substantial evidence supported the finding that McCone failed to display his valid permit as instructed, but reversed and remanded two cases where there was no competent evidence in the record to support the guilty findings.
The court affirmed the conviction in Case No. 2008-MO-2299 because competent substantial evidence supported the finding that McCone deliberately failed to display his permit tag as instructed. The court reversed and remanded Cases No. 2009-MO-000084 and 2009-MO-000501 because there was no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of guilt in those cases.
[1] Appellate review is limited to whether due process was afforded, whether the essential requirements of the law have been observed, and whether there is competent substant…
[2] A finding of guilt requires competent substantial evidence to support it.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Our review in this type of proceeding is limited to whether due process was afforded, whether the essential requirements of the law have been observed, and whether there is competent substantial evidence to support the hearing officer's decision.”
Establishes the standard of appellate review for parking citation cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcCone held a valid city parking permit but failed to display it on his rearview mirror as instructed and did not deposit money in the meter when park…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Before POWELL, LEBLANC, J. KEST, J.J.
PER CURIAM.
FINAL ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND REVERSING IN PART TRIAL COURT
Appellant Henry McCone timely appeals from three separate final orders finding Appellant guilty of failing to pay three expired parking meter tickets and imposing fines and court costs. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(c)(1)(A). The Court dispenses with oral argument pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.320. After carefully reviewing the briefs, the record on appeal, and the applicable legal authorities, the Court affirms in part and reverses in part. Our review in this type of proceeding is limited to whether due process was afforded, whether the essential requirements of the law have been observed, and whether there is competent substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s decision. See City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982). We restate the cardinal issue as follows: whether there is competent substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt in all three cases, and if so, whether there was an abuse of discretion in imposing fines and court costs in each case. Case No. 2008-MO-2299 The facts revealed by the record indicate that Appellant had a valid city parking permit but when he parked his vehicle in a city metered parking lot, he failed to place his permit tag hanger on the rearview mirror and he did not put any money in the meter. A citation for parking at an expired metered was issued to Appellant. Appellant did not pay the citation. Instead, he went to the Orlando Parking Bureau and requested a hearing after declining the City’s offer to reduce the amount of the fine. The hearing was conducted and concluded with a finding of guilt. Rehearing was denied as to all three cases.1 Section 39.45, City of Orlando Code of Ordinances, provides in pertinent part: It shall be unlawful for any vehicle to be placed or remain parked in any metered parking space beyond the time period allowed by the deposit of legal tender or an approved device. The parking meter shall indicate expiration of time and, in that event, such vehicle shall be considered parked overtime and a citation may be issued.
The hearing officer ruled that where a permit holder parks in a metered space in a City of Orlando lot, does not display his permit hanger as instructed, and receives a ticket, it is discretionary under the ordinance as to whether a fine should be imposed. The hearing officer reasoned that since Appellant deliberately chose not to display his permit tag or put money in the meter, a fine should be imposed in the instant case. The Court agrees with the hearing officer and finds that his decision is supported by competent substantial evidence and that the essential requirements of the law have been observed. Case No. 2009-MO-000084 and 2009-MO-000501 The Court agrees with Appellant that there is not competent substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s finding of guilt as to Case No. 2009-MO-000084 and Case No. 2009-MO-000501. In fact, there appears to be no record evidence at all to support the findings. The only reference to these two cases appears in the transcript as follows: Hearing Officer: Okay. So that being said, the Court – lets see, we’re on2 – 2299. The Court
We find Appellant’s other points to be without merit.
Based on the foregoing, the trial court’s final order is AFFIRMED as to Case No. 2008-MO-002299-O and REVERSED AND REMANDED as to Case No. 2009-MO-000084 and Case No. 2009-MO-000501. DONE and ORDERED at Orlando, Florida this ___12__day __November___________,
2010.
/s/
ROM W. POWELL Senior Circuit Judge
/s/
/s/
JANET C. THORPE
REGINALD WHITEHEAD Circuit Judge
Circuit Judge
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing order was furnished via U.S. mail on this 12 day of November , 2010, to the following: Henry McCone, Post Office Box 551908, Orlando, Florida 32855 and Kimberly Laskoff, Esquire, City of Orlando, Post Office Box 913, Orlando, Florida 32802-0913.
/s/
Judicial Assistant