Summary
refusing to consider videos that were not admitted into evidence and were not in the appellate record
Summary of this case from U.S. Auto. Ass'n v. Bay Area Injury Rehab Specialists HoldingsOpinion
No. 1D18-5061
02-18-2020
Lorraine M. PATIN, Appellant, v. Courtney J. DAVIS, Appellee.
L. Lee Lockett of Lockett Law, Jacksonville Beach, for Appellant. Courtney J. Davis, pro se, Appellee.
L. Lee Lockett of Lockett Law, Jacksonville Beach, for Appellant.
Courtney J. Davis, pro se, Appellee.
Per Curiam. Ms. Patin seeks review of the trial court's Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Stalking, arguing a lack of competent, substantial evidence in the record supporting entitlement. A careful review of the record reveals that Ms. Davis did not satisfy her burden of proof under section 784.0485, Florida Statutes. The trial court's oral pronouncement of its decision makes clear that issuance of the injunction was based on cell phone videos the court viewed during the hearing. However, these videos were not admitted into evidence and are not in the record before us. The evidence that was admitted was legally insufficient to support the issuance of the injunction. Because we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the imposition of the injunction, the final judgment is reversed. See Pickett v. Copeland , 236 So. 3d 1142, 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).
REVERSED .
Ray, C.J., and M.K. Thomas, J., concur; Wolf, J., dissents without opinion.