Court Opinion

ID: 9964993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 15:03:42.716536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:51.962294
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed May 1, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-2192
                       Lower Tribunal No. AFJOA7E
                           ________________

                         Onelia Elza Ramirez,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                          The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina
Rivera Correa, Judge.

      Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and John Eddy Morrison,
Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

      Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

     GORDO, J.
      Onelia Elza Ramirez (“Ramirez”) appeals a final judgment of conviction

and sentence for knowingly driving with a suspended license. We have

jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A), 9.140(b)(1)(B). For the following

reasons, we affirm.

      Ramirez alleges the trial court erred in finding she failed to rebut the

presumption of knowledge of suspension. Based on the record before us,

we find the trial court correctly applied the law and was well within its

discretion to determine that the evidence presented by Ramirez was

insufficient to rebut the presumption. See § 322.34(2), Fla. Stat. (“The

element of knowledge is satisfied if the person has been previously cited . .

. or the person admits to knowledge of the cancellation, suspension, or

revocation . . . or the person received notice . . . . There shall be a rebuttable

presumption that the knowledge requirement is satisfied if a judgment or

order . . . appears in the department’s records for any case except for one

involving a suspension by the department for failure to pay a traffic fine or for

a financial responsibility violation.”); Robinson v. State, 348 So. 3d 1146,

1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (“Regarding notice, the State is required to prove

that DHSMV mailed the notice to the last known mailing address.”); §

322.251(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (“Such mailing by the department constitutes

notification, and any failure by the person to receive the mailed order will not

                                        2
affect or stay the effective date . . . of the . . . suspension . . . . Proof of the

giving of notice and an order of . . . suspension . . . in either manner shall be

made by entry in the records of the department that such notice was

given. The entry is admissible in the courts of this state and constitutes

sufficient proof that such notice was given.”); Hawthorne v. State, 248 So. 3d

1261, 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (“A driving record showing a license

suspension is sufficient to prove that a defendant had notice that his or her

license was suspended.”).

      Affirmed.

                                         3