LEWIS

v.

STATE 25 AP 1 AFFIRMED_A2B

EWEN, J.

Appellant appeals the Amended Order of the traffic hearing officer entered on December 13, 2024 adjudicating him guilty of five civil traffic infractions and withholding adjudication on a sixth civil traffic infraction. This Court previously affirmed without opinion. [*2] Page 2 of 8 On second-tier certiorari review, the Fourth District Court of Appeal quashed that affirmance and returned the case for further proceedings, specifically to allow this court to rule on Appellant’s motion to supplement the appellate record. Lewis v. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 434 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). Having cured the procedural defect the district court identified, and having considered the briefs, the record on appeal, and the governing law, this Court now resolves the appeal on the merits and affirms. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 18, 2024, a Florida Highway Patrol trooper issued Appellant six civil traffic citations for the following: following too closely; failure to signal a direction change; failure to carry a driver license; failure to drive in a single lane; improper overtaking and passing; and unlawful speed. The cause came before the Traffic Hearing Officer for hearing on November 13, 2024. On December 13, 2024, the Traffic Hearing Officer found that the State had satisfied its burden of proof on each charge and denied Appellant’s motion to dismiss. The hearing officer adjudicated Appellant guilty of five infractions and withheld adjudication on the charge of driving without a license in his possession. The same amended order denied Appellant’s motion for reconsideration, and a further order denying reconsideration followed on January 2, 2025. Appellant timely invoked this Court’s jurisdiction. The November 13, 2024 hearing was not transcribed by a court reporter, and the record on appeal contains no transcript. Appellant filed a statement of the evidence under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(5) in lieu of a [*3] Page 3 of 8 transcript. This Court relinquished jurisdiction to permit the lower tribunal to settle the statement, and the Traffic Hearing Officer, faced with the parties’ objections and no verifiable record, was unable to settle or approve it. This Court then struck the unsettled statement and afforded Appellant a further opportunity to file a certified transcript, which he did not do. The Fourth District quashed this Court’s prior affirmance for a single reason; while the appeal was pending, Appellant had moved to supplement the appellate record, and this Court inadvertently issued an opinion citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979) without first ruling on that motion. Lewis v. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 434 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026) (granting Petition for Writ of Certiorari and quashing this court’s decision finding the circuit court reviewed an incomplete record in violation of appellant’s procedural due process rights). On remand, this Court has cured that defect. On May 30, 2026, it expressly permitted Appellant to supplement the record and ruled on his supplement. Appellant’s June 15, 2026 Supplement sought to add two categories of material: (a) copies of the six civil traffic citations dated August 19, 2024; and (b) an arrest and booking record dated August 19, 2024, arising from a separate criminal case, No. 2024CF001009A. The Clerk of Court certified that it could not prepare the requested supplement as the six civil citations are already contained in the certified record on appeal, and the arrest record pertains to a separate felony matter that was never part of the lower tribunal cases under review. [*4] Page 4 of 8 By order dated July 1, 2026, this Court denied Appellant’s motion to compel supplementation as the civil citations are already in the record, and the arrest and booking records were not part of the lower tribunal proceedings under review and fall outside the scope of Rule 9.200(f). This Court denied reconsideration on July 2, 2026. That disposition satisfies both the district court’s mandate and due process. The opportunity to supplement guaranteed by Rule 9.200(f)(2) is the opportunity to complete the record with materials that belong in it for the reviewing court to have those portions of the record that were before the lower tribunal, not a license to expand the record with matters never presented below. See e.g. United States Auto. Ass'n v. Bay Area Injury Rehab Specialists Holdings, Inc., 311 So. 3d 172, 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020); and see Elalouf v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., 311 So. 3d 863, 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“Where a document is not part of the record, it will not be considered by the appellate court. See Hughes v. Enter. Leasing Co., 831 So. 2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)); and see Krock v. Rozinsky, 78 So. 3d 38, 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (declining to consider matters outside of the record). Appellant received exactly the opportunity the rule contemplates; the arrest and booking records from the separate felony case were never before the Traffic Hearing Officer and could not be added to this record on appeal. Standard of Review A hearing officer is empowered to decide the guilt or innocence of any person charged with a civil traffic infraction and to adjudicate or withhold [*5] Page 5 of 8 adjudication “in the same manner as a county court judge.” § 318.32(1), Fla. Stat. The hearing officer’s decision comes to this Court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the burden rests on the appellant to demonstrate reversible error. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee at 1152. In the absence of a transcript, the court is unable to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence considered by the trial court in support of its factual findings and instead must presume that such findings are correct. Id. An appellate court must affirm where “the record brought forward by the appellant is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error.” Id. The Issues on Appeal Appellant contends that he was denied due process under Article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution, and that the Traffic Hearing Officer violated the Uniform Disposition of Traffic Infractions Act and Florida Rule of Traffic Court 6.150 because Appellant was adjudicated guilty without the citing officer’s testimony and without a plea or trial. He argues these are fundamental errors reviewable notwithstanding the absence of a transcript. The Amended Order recites that the Traffic Hearing Officer decided the charges “[a]fter taking into consideration the testimony of both parties” and found the State had satisfied its burden of proof on each charge. Appellant’s assertion that no testimony was taken and that the officer was absent contradicts the face of the order. Without a transcript or an approved statement of the evidence, this Court cannot resolve that conflict in Appellant’s favor; it must presume the order correct. See Chereskin v. Chereskin, 790 So. 2d 496 [*6] Page 6 of 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); and see Goonan v. Hensley, 852 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The order before the Court reflects that testimony was considered and the charges proven; nothing in the certified record establishes the contrary. The claim of an adjudication without a witness therefore fails for want of an adequate record. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). As to Appellant’s contention regarding the unlawful-speed citation (No. 312024TR011056), the Traffic Hearing Officer expressly found that “the State failed to present testimony regarding the actual speed of the Defendant but accept[ed] the Defendant’s admission as to the fact that he was speeding,” and adjudicated Appellant guilty of traveling nine miles per hour over the limit rather than the thirty-or-more originally charged. Whether Appellant in fact admitted the reduced infraction, and in what terms, is again a matter of the unrecorded hearing; the order recites an admission, and the presumption of correctness controls. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). Appellant next contends that the Traffic Hearing Officer denied his request, made in writing before the hearing, to elect traffic school for at least one citation under section 318.14(9), Florida Statutes, and that the denial led to the suspension of his license. The record establishes that Appellant appeared and contested his citations before the hearing officer on November 13, 2024, and that the cause was adjudicated after a hearing. By electing to appear and litigate rather than electing the course in lieu of a court appearance, Appellant placed [*7] Page 7 of 8 himself outside the traffic-school election as a matter of law. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 318.14. Moreover, whether and how Appellant pressed the election at the hearing, and how the Traffic Hearing Officer treated it, are matters that occurred at the unrecorded hearing and cannot be reviewed without a transcript. Appellant’s principal substantive contention is jurisdictional. He argues that Florida Rule of Traffic Court 6.630(c) and section 318.32(1)(c) barred the Traffic Hearing Officer from adjudicating civil infractions that were “issued in conjunction with” the criminal traffic offenses arising from the same August 18, 2024 incident, and that the later transfer of the criminal charges to another county did not cure the bar. Because this argument sounds in the tribunal’s authority to act, it is properly considered notwithstanding the absence of a transcript, and it was presented to and ruled upon below. A hearing officer “shall not hear a criminal traffic offense case or a case involving a civil traffic infraction issued in conjunction with a criminal traffic offense.” § 318.32(1)(c), Fla. Stat. The argument nonetheless fails on this record as each of the six citations adjudicated below is a noncriminal traffic infraction governed by Chapter 318. No criminal traffic offense was charged in, or before the hearing officer in, the six traffic cases that constitute the lower tribunal proceedings under review. The only materials Appellant offers to show that these infractions were issued in conjunction with a criminal traffic offense are not part of the certified record on appeal and as such, will not be considered. The record before the Court does not demonstrate that the hearing officer adjudicated “a case involving [*8] Page 8 of 8 a civil traffic infraction issued in conjunction with a criminal traffic offense,” and the presumption of correctness is not overcome. The Court accordingly rejects the jurisdictional challenge on the record before it, without deciding the abstract question not reached in Lewis v. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 434 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026) — whether transfer of criminal charges can ever cure the bar where the predicate is established. Conclusion The procedural defect identified by the Fourth District Court of Appeal has been cured. Lewis was afforded, and received, a ruling on his motion to supplement the record before disposition of this appeal, consistent with the mandate and Rule 9.200(f)(2). On the merits, Lewis has not carried his burden to demonstrate reversible error. To the extent Lewis’s Reply is construed as a motion to strike, that relief is denied. The Amended Order of the traffic hearing officer dated December 13, 2024, is Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979).

Copies of above decision were furnished to the attorneys/parties of record on the same date the decision was filed.