DERRICK MOSS, 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.
Derrick Moss was convicted of strong-arm robbery and appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial based on the verdict being against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that appellate courts lack authority to reverse a trial court's denial of a weight-of-evidence motion when legal sufficiency of evidence is not challenged.
An appellate court lacks authority to reverse a trial court's determination on a weight-of-evidence motion under Rule 3.600(a)(2). When evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction and no reversible error was committed at trial, the appellate court's duty is to affirm.
[1] A trial court may grant a new trial if the verdict is contrary to law or the weight of the evidence.
[2] A challenge to the weight of the evidence involves a determination of whether a greater amount of credible evidence supports one side of an issue over the other.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“[t]he verdict is contrary to law or the weight of the evidence”
Establishes the grounds under Rule 3.600(a)(2) for trial courts to grant new trials
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDerrick Moss was convicted of strong-arm robbery following a jury trial. After conviction, he filed a timely motion for new trial pursuant to Florida …
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 Weight Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge.
Derrick Moss was convicted of strong-arm robbery after a jury trial. He thereafter timely filed a motion for new trial pursuant to Rule 3.600(a)(2), Fla.R.Crim.P. and asserted that although the state’s evidence may have been legally sufficient to support a conviction, the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court’s denial of this motion is the sole issue on this appeal.
Under Rule 3.600(a)(2), a trial court in a criminal proceeding is permitted to grant a new trial if it determines that “[t]he verdict is contrary to law or the weight of the evidence.” It must first be pointed out that there is a significant difference between a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence and a challenge made to the weight of the evidence. Sanford v. State, 687 So. 2d 315, 316-17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
A challenge to the former “means that the prosecution has failed to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (Fla.1981) (citing Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 16 n. 10, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 2150 n. 10, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 [, 12 n. 10] (1978)), aff'd, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982).
A challenge to the latter, however, “is a somewhat more subjective concept” in that “[i]t is a determination of the trier of fact that a greater amount of credible evidence supports one side of an issue or cause than the other.” 397 So. 2d at 1123. Indeed, a motion attacking the weight of the evidence permits the trial judge to reweigh the evidence and redetermine the credibility of the witnesses “so as to act, in effect, as an additional juror.” Sanford, 687 So. 2d 315, 317; Kelley v. State, 637 So. 2d 972, 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
That is precisely what the court below was called upon to do pursuant to Moss’ motion and what is now the subject matter of this appeal.
Unfortunately for Moss, however, the supreme court in Tibbs abolished any authority or doctrine which had previously permitted appellate courts to reverse a trial court’s determination of an evidentiary weight motion made pursuant to Rule 3.600(a)(2).- As the court said, “[Ilegal sufficiency alone, as opposed to evidentiary weight, is the appropriate concern of an appellate tribunal.” Tibbs, 397 So. 2d at 1123; see also Sanford, 687 So. 2d 315, 317-18; Kelley, 637 So. 2d at 974. Thus, where as here, there is competent evidence to support Moss’ conviction and there has otherwise been no assertion of reversible error being committed in the trial itself, our duty is only to affirm the conviction. Tibbs, 397 So. 2d at 1125.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. MAY, 703 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…r (ii) the weight of the evidence. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.600(a)(2). There is a distinct difference between review on these two grounds. Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1981), aff'd, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); Moss v. State, 689 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Review for legal sufficiency examines the adequacy of the evidence. Tibbs, 397 So. 2d at 1123. “[A] finding that the evidence is legally insufficient means that the prosecution has failed to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a r…
Authorities Cited
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978)
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1982)
- Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)
- Kelley v. State, 637 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Sanford v. State, 687 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)