ALEXANDER G. BECERRA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, AND LOWE'S HOME CENTER, INC., APPELLEES

Fla. 4th DCA | 2011-02-02
No. 4D10-513
GROSS, C.J., STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur.
51 So. 3d 1286 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2011) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the decision of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming a referee’s decision that he was disqualified for benefits. The referee determined that appellant was disqualified from benefits because he voluntarily quit his job to accept other employment. This finding was supported by a handwritten note signed by appellant which stated:

To whom it may concern I Alex Becerra am giving my 2 week notice, my last day of employment at Lowes will be August 11[,] 2009. Thank you for everything[.]

Substantial, competent evidence thus supports the findings of the referee, which were adopted by the Commission. Although appellant now complains about the notice of the hearing with the referee, he did not raise this issue before the Commission, and therefore has waived it.

Affirmed.

GROSS, C.J., STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Demetry E. Fain v. State, 134 So. 3d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
    …d in denying his counsel’s request for a closing argument at the end of the evidentiary portion of the hearing. We agree. Appellant was entitled to an opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether he violated his probation. See Pearson v. State, 51 So. 3d 1286, 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Estevez v. State, 705 So. 2d 972, 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citing Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 611, 105 S.Ct. 2254, 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985)). This opportunity includes the right to a closing argument. Pearson, 51 So. 3d at…
  • Selman v. State, 160 So. 3d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
    …ersarial judicial proceeding that could deprive him of his liberty — the most fundamental of all due process rights.”). The failure to afford a defendant a closing argument in such an adversarial proceeding is reversible error. See Pearson v. State, 51 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Although the parties may consent or otherwise be directed to present their closing arguments in writing, a defendant still must be given the opportunity to present closing argument in some form. See J.M.S. v. State, 921 So. 2d 8…
    1 / 2

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw