Cash W. Pawley, Sr. v. Janice Marie
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJune 24, 2020
Docket3D19-1154
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed June 24, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-1154
Lower Tribunal No. 12-1241-K
________________
Cash W. Pawley, Sr.,
Appellant,
vs.
Janice Marie,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Bonnie J. Helms,
Judge.
Cash W. Pawley, Sr., in proper person.
Janice Marie, in proper person, precluded from oral argument.
Before EMAS, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.
EMAS, C.J.
Cash Wallace Pawley appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to
modify an injunction for protection against domestic violence. The trial court held
a hearing on the motion and, in the exercise of its discretion, denied the motion to
modify. On appeal, Pawley urges this court to consider issues of fact and to draw
conclusions about the evidence presented below. However, the record on appeal
does not include a transcript of the hearing on the motion to modify. In the absence
of the transcript, this court cannot provide meaningful appellate review of the issues
raised, and we must therefore affirm unless there is error apparent on the face of the
order on appeal. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152
(Fla. 1979); Aspiazu v. Ringel, 54 So. 3d 547 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (affirming final
judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence where there was no
transcript of the lower court proceedings provided); Bisnauth v. Leelum, 233 So. 3d
1275, 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (observing: “Generally, where an appellant fails to
provide the appellate court with a trial transcript, the trial court's judgment must be
affirmed. Notwithstanding the absence of a transcript, however, an appellate court
may review a lower court judgment for error apparent on its face”) (quoting Hall v
Calderin, 47 So. 3d 852, 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)).
Finding no such error, we affirm.
2