MARCOS ALEJANDRO TRAFICANTE vs SHANELLE LAMBERT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 26, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D18-1739 Lower Tribunal No. 18-13037 ________________ Marcos Alejandro Traficante, Appellant, vs. Shanelle Lambert, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ramiro C. Areces, Judge. Jose-Carlos Villanueva, for appellant. No appearance for appellee. Before SALTER, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 784.046, Fla. Stat. (2018) (action by victim of repeat violence; defining “violence” to include assault, and “repeat violence” to mean two incidents of violence committed by the respondent, one of which must have been within six months of the filing of the petition); Levy v. Jacobs, 69 So. 3d 403, 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“An appellate court reviews an order granting an injunction for protection against repeat violence to determine whether each alleged act of violence is supported by competent, substantial evidence”). In the trial court, the appellee/petitioner was represented by counsel, testified to the first and second incidents of violence (May 27, 2018, and April 8, 2018), and provided corroborative evidence through the testimony of a law enforcement officer and photographic evidence. The second incident indisputably occurred less than six months prior to the filing of the petition. The respondent, who is the appellant here, was not represented by counsel in the trial court and provided no evidence beyond his own denial. In this Court, the appellee/petitioner is not represented by counsel and has not filed a brief or memorandum of points and authorities. Nonetheless, the appellant has failed to demonstrate legal error, and the record provides competent, substantial evidence supporting the final judgment of injunction for protection against repeat violence (after notice). Affirmed. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.