JAMES SINCLAIR JR.

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPT OF HWY SAFETY

Before: TRAWICK, WALSH and SANTOVENIA. PER CURIAM. Petitioner argues that the hearing officer for the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (“Department”) erred by denying Petitioner’s motion for early reinstatement of his driving privileges. Filing # 114923574 E-Filed 10/14/2020 06:56:52 AM [*2] Our standard of review is limited to “whether or not the board provided procedural due process, observed the essential requirements of the law, and supported its findings by substantial competent evidence.” Broward County v. G. B. V. International, Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2001); Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995); City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982). The record on appeal consists only of the Final Order and an uncertified transcript of Petitioner’s driving record. By Order dated March 24, 2020, this court ordered the Petitioner to file a complete written transcript of the administrative hearing below. Petitioner failed to do so. Generally, where an appellant fails to provide the appellate court with a trial transcript, the order below must be affirmed. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979). Further, there is a presumption of correctness in the order being appealed. Id. at 1152. Petitioner has failed to provide this court with a sufficient record to demonstrate reversible error below, and our appellate review is accordingly limited due to the absence of a hearing transcript. Notwithstanding the absence of a transcript, however, an appellate court may review a lower court judgment for error apparent on its face. See Bisnauth v. Leelum, 233 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) citing Hill v. Calderon, 47 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Howle v. Howle, 967 [*3] So. 2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Kanter v. Kanter, 850 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Here, the Petitioner fails to include any argument or facts which would support the contention that the Department’s Final Order was incorrectly entered. In fact, Petitioner admits in the Petition that he was driving with a suspended license. The Petition focuses instead on Petitioner’s need to drive, the reasons for requesting a hardship license, and the request that this court review the matter in the hope that it will reach a different conclusion than the Department hearing officer. Limiting our analysis, as we must, to whether there is clear error on the face of the Final Order, we find none. The Department’s Final Order on its face clearly indicates that the hearing officer addressed the limited scope of her review at the formal hearing to a review of the Petitioner’s driving record and his testimony, qualifications, fitness and need to drive. Based on the evidence, the hearing officer made a finding of fact that the Petitioner continued to drive while his license was revoked. The hearing officer’s determination that the Petitioner was ineligible for a hardship license was supported by competent and substantial evidence. Finding no error, we conclude that the order below was correctly entered, and the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is therefore denied. TRAWICK AND WALSH, JJ., concur. COPIES FURNISHED TO COUNSEL [*4] OF RECORD AND TO ANY PARTY

NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

[*5] Copies Furnished to: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]