DAVID HERNANDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judgment Of Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm defendant’s convictions as to counts II and III, finding no merit as to the issue raised attacking those convictions. However, we reverse defendant’s conviction as to count I, violation of a domestic violence injunction, based on Cordova v. State, 675 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), because the trial court erred in taking judicial notice “of the fact [that] the court file does reflect that the defendant was personally served with a copy of the injunction.” Pursuant to Cordova, 675 So. 2d at 636, it was improper for the court to take judicial notice of the fact that defendant was served with a copy of-the injunction. As service of the injunction was an element of the state’s case, and the state did not prove service on defendant, defendant was entitled to a judgment of acquittal on this count.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nola Ann Suggs v. State, 795 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…d be considered. We disagree. Proof of service of the permanent injunction was required in order for Suggs to be convicted of violating the permanent injunction. Cordova v. State, 675 So. 2d 632, 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); see also Hernandez v. State, 713 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Notice is an essential element to a charge of violation of the provisions of an injunction, and proof of service is critical. Cordova, 675 So. 2d at 634. Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.610(c)(3)(B)(ii) specifically áddr…
Authorities Cited
- Widemond v. State, 675 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Cordova v. State, 675 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)