Case Name: Carl Barnett HANSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2012-07-13
Citations: 92 So. 3d 288
Docket Number: No. 5D11-3109
Parties: Carl Barnett HANSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: EVANDER and COHEN, JJ. and MONACO, D.A., Senior Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 92
Pages: 288–289

Head Matter:
Carl Barnett HANSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 5D11-3109.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
July 13, 2012.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Rose M. Levering, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Megan Saillant, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The evidence presented in this case was legally insufficient to establish that the pursuing 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).
However, 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).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
EVANDER and COHEN, JJ. and MONACO, D.A., Senior Judge, concur.