Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

92 So. 3d 288

Hanson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2012-07-13

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 2018

2 state decisions

Relies on Gorsuch v. State · 30 So. 3d 684 - Slack v. State · 23 So. 3d 1207 - Erskine v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2012-07-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The evidence presented in this case was legally insufficient to establish that the *289pursuing officer had “agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle” as required by section 316.1935(2), Florida Statutes (2010). See Slack v. State, 30 So.3d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Gorsuch v. State, 797 So.2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

¶2However, because the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser included offense set forth in section 316.1935(1) and the jury necessarily found that the elements of such lesser offense were proven, we remand, pursuant to section 924.34, Florida Statutes (2010), for the trial court to enter a judgment of conviction for that offense. See Slack; Sanner v. State, 63 So.3d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Erskine v. State, 23 So.3d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

¶3REVERSED and REMANDED.

EVANDER and COHEN, JJ. and MONACO, D.A., Senior Judge, concur.
/92/so3d/288 · .json · Public domain