final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion
under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Jonathan
V. Murray, Tallahassee, and Kevin Robert Alvarez,
Tallahassee, for Appellant.
J. Schulte, Jr. of Ausley McMullen, Tallahassee, for
KETCHEL, TERRANCE R., ASSOCIATE JUDGE.
Khan challenges the lower court's final judgment granting
Laura Deutschman a dating violence injunction against him.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
well established that a trial court has broad discretion to
enter an injunction, and a decision based on that discretion
will not be overturned absent a finding that the court abused
that discretion. Pickett v. Copeland, 236 So.3d
1142, 1143-44 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). "It [is] the
responsibility of the trial court to determine the
credibility of the witnesses and to resolve the conflicts in
evidence." Jeffries v. Jeffries, 133 So.3d
1243, 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Disston v.
Hanson, 116 So.3d 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)). "It is
well-established that the appellate court does not re- weigh
the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses."
Lahodik v. Lahodik, 696 So.2d 533, 535 (Fla. 1st DCA
often the case with pro se litigants in domestic violence
injunction hearings, the testimony of the parties in this
case was sometimes contradictory, and even in direct dispute
on several crucial matters. The parties engaged in an eight-
to eleven-month romantic relationship that by all accounts
was a significant relationship. The parties stayed at each
other's homes occasionally during their relationship,
lived together for short periods of time, and traveled
together. On the other hand, both parties acknowledged that
the relationship was rocky and was often "on again, off
significance to this case, in the middle of November 2017,
the two broke up, and a few days later, had a rather public
falling out when Appellant saw Appellee in the arms of
another man at a local bar. Appellee yelled at Appellant
because she felt that Appellant followed her to the bar. The
fight stretched into the early hours of the next morning via
a string of mostly unanswered text messages.
Appellee ended the fight by telling Appellant that she never
wanted to talk to him again, and she immediately blocked him
from contacting her by phone and social media. Appellee was
unequivocal at this time that she wanted no further contact
and that this was permanent. She made no further contact with
Appellant, even in the face of repeated efforts by him to
communicate. Appellant claims that Appellee called him one
time following this no contact request, on a blocked phone
number, and spoke with him for forty-five minutes, a claim
that Appellee vigorously denied.
also testified that Appellant struck her in the face a year
earlier, pointing to the volatile nature of the relationship,
an accusation that the Appellant denied.
the next few months, in an apparent attempt to reconcile,
Appellant continued to try to contact Appellee via several
texts, a formal letter, flowers, and on at least one
occasion, a phone call, none of which were responded to by
Appellee. On the contrary, during this time, Appellee
attempted to stop Appellant from contacting her by having her
attorney send Appellant a cease and desist letter, which
Appellant received. Ultimately, Appellee contacted the police
to assist her in having Appellant stop contacting her. When
this was not successful, Appellee finally filed for an
injunction to prevent dating violence.
trial court commented that it was flabbergasted by
Appellant's failure to heed the attorney's formal
cease and desist letter, and the court concluded that it
considered the continued communications following clear
directions to stop as "hectoring." Based on these
facts the trial court entered a final injunction on the
Petition for Protection Against Dating Violence for a period
of one year.
raises "the question of whether the evidence is legally
sufficient to justify imposing an injunction [which] is a
question of law that we review de novo."
Pickett, 236 So.3d at 1144 (citing Wills ...