You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Driver v. State

Citations: 996 So. 2d 237; 2008 WL 5048253Docket: 5D08-2853

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 24, 2008; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Johnny T. Driver appealed a decision against the State of Florida. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, ruled on November 25, 2008, affirming the lower court's decision. Driver represented himself in the appeal, while the State was represented by the Attorney General's Office. The court's ruling referenced a precedent case, Newsom v. State, 869 So.2d 619 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), indicating that the appeal did not present sufficient grounds for reversal. The decision was unanimous among the judges PLEUS, MONACO, and EVANDER.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmation of Lower Court's Decision

Application: The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, affirmed the lower court's decision, maintaining the original ruling against Johnny T. Driver.

Reasoning: The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, ruled on November 25, 2008, affirming the lower court's decision.

Precedent and Grounds for Reversal

Application: The court relied on a previous case, Newsom v. State, to determine that the appellant did not present sufficient grounds for reversing the lower court's decision.

Reasoning: The court's ruling referenced a precedent case, Newsom v. State, 869 So.2d 619 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), indicating that the appeal did not present sufficient grounds for reversal.

Self-Representation in Appeals

Application: The appellant, Johnny T. Driver, represented himself in the appeal, which was a factor considered in the court's review of the case.

Reasoning: Driver represented himself in the appeal, while the State was represented by the Attorney General's Office.

Unanimous Judicial Decision

Application: The decision to affirm the lower court's ruling was unanimous among the judges presiding over the appeal.

Reasoning: The decision was unanimous among the judges PLEUS, MONACO, and EVANDER.