GUILLERMO ESTRADA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Estrada appealed his conviction for aggravated assault (charged as robbery with a firearm) on grounds of insufficient evidence of his intent to aid and abet. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Estrada's argument was not properly preserved for appeal and, alternatively, that circumstantial evidence of his role as getaway driver was sufficient to support the conviction.
The court affirmed the conviction on two independent grounds: (1) Estrada failed to properly preserve the sufficiency of evidence argument because he made no motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial below, and his trial argument addressed only identification, not criminal intent; and (2) even if the argument had been properly preserved, the circumstantial evidence—including that Estrada served as getaway driver, strategically positioned the car, waited during the robbery, and fled the scene with the fruits and instrumentalities—was sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal.
[1] A claim of insufficient evidence to establish intent to aid and abet is not preserved for appellate review when no motion for judgment of acquittal or motion for new tria…
[2] An argument attacking the identification of a defendant at the close of the state's case does not preserve for appellate review a subsequent claim of insufficient evidenc…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the sole point raised on appeal [i. e., the state's evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant intended to participate in the subject aggravated assault as an aider and abetter] was not properly preserved for appellate review because: (1) no motion for judgment of acquittal was made below [at best only an argument in support of such a motion at the close of the state's case], and no motion for new trial was made below”
Establishes the preservation doctrine requiring formal motions to preserve sufficiency arguments for appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEstrada was convicted of aggravated assault as a lesser offense on a charge of robbery with a firearm. The evidence showed that Estrada drove a car in…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Robbery With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of conviction and sentence for aggravated assault [entered upon a jury verdict of guilt as a lesser offense on an information charging robbery with a firearm] which is under review by this appeal is affirmed upon a holding that:
(1) the sole point raised on appeal [i. e., the state’s evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant intended to participate in the subject aggravated assault as an aider and abetter] was not properly preserved for appellate review because: (1) no motion for judgment of acquittal was made below [at best only an argument in support of such a motion at the close of the state’s case], and no motion for new trial was made below; State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1974); Mancini v. State, 273 So. 2d 371 (Fla.1973); Sundell v. State, 354 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); and (b) the argument on sufficiency made below at the close of the state’s case — even if treated as a motion for judgment of acquittal — consisted solely of an attack on the identification of the defendant and was in no way related to the criminal intent — aiding and abetting ground now asserted for the first time on appeal, Daley v. State, 374 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); G.W.B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 948 (Fla.1977);
(2) the state’s circumstantial evidence relevant to the defendant’s intent to participate in the subject aggravated assault as an aider and abetter was, in any event, sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal as it established that the defendant: (a) was the driver of the get-away car in a gas station holdup; (b) drove the said car into the gas station prior to the holdup and hid the car behind a wall on the gas station property so that the car could not be seen from the street or from inside the building on the gas station property; (c) waited while his two companions in the car got out and committed a robbery with a firearm upon the attendant at the gas station; and, (d) hastily fled the scene in the car with his two companions after the robbery was committed, and was caught shortly thereafter with the fruits and in-strumentalities of the robbery plainly visible to all in the car, see e. g., Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1974); Amato v. State, 296 So. 2d 609, 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.E.K. v. State, 432 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…appellate court [*723] were to overturn the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress the juvenile’s statement and the fruits thereof. See State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1974); Mancini v. State, 273 So. 2d 371 (Fla.1973); Estrada v. State, 400 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). . Since the totality of circumstances in the present case clearly demonstrates that the trial proceedings were tantamount to a nolo conten-dere plea, it is unnecessary for us to consider whether even though the proceedings are n…
-
Morris v. State, 412 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Estrada v. State, 400 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Eugenio Correa v. State, 420 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Downer v. State, 375 So. 2d 840 (Fla.1979); State v. Freber, 366 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1978); Estrada v. State, 400 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1974)
- State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1974)
- Amato v. State, 296 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Mancini v. State, 273 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1973)
- G. W. B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Sundell v. State, 354 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Carlton O. Daley v. State, 374 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)