JEREMY BILLY VARGAS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Jeremy Billy Vargas appealed his first-degree premeditated murder conviction, arguing the State failed to prove he killed his wife and failed to prove premeditation. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the identity issue was sufficiently raised but the premeditation issue was not properly preserved for appellate review due to defense counsel's failure to adequately set forth that ground in the motion for judgment of acquittal.
The court affirmed the conviction on both issues. The identity issue was sufficiently preserved and the evidence was sufficient. The premeditation issue was not properly preserved for appellate review because defense counsel's motion for judgment of acquittal did not fully set forth premeditation as a specific ground.
[1] A motion for judgment of acquittal must state the specific grounds upon which it is based to preserve an issue for appellate review.
[2] A general motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence of identity does not preserve for appellate review the issue of insufficient evidence of premedi…
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“A motion for judgment of acquittal "must fully set forth the grounds on which it is based." Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.380(b)”
Establishes the procedural requirement that motions for judgment of acquittal must explicitly state all grounds being raised
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJeremy Billy Vargas was convicted of the first-degree premeditated murder of his wife, Theresa, in a bludgeoning death. At the end of the State's case…
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 First Degree Premeditated Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Jeremy Billy Vargas appeals from his conviction and sentence for the first-degree premeditated murder of his wife, Theresa, raising two issues that deal with the sufficiency of the evidence. He argues first, that the State failed to present sufficient circumstantial evidence that he was the person who killed his wife. Second, he argues that if the evidence was sufficient to submit the case to the jury that he was the murderer, the State failed to prove premeditation but proved, at most, that he committed second-degree, “depraved mind,” murder. § 782.04(2), Fla. Stat. (1999). We find no merit to his first contention and thus affirm on that issue without further discussion. Because we find that defense counsel at trial failed to preserve the premeditation issue for appellate review, we affirm that issue also.
Recitation of the horrific details of the bludgeoning to death of Theresa Vargas will serve no purpose here. Suffice it to say that at the end of the State’s case-in-chief, defense counsel made a motion for judgment of acquittal by saying, “Motion for judgment of acquittal on the basis that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jeremy Vargas killed Theresa Vargas. There is evidence suggesting it, but no evidence that actually says he did it.” The State concedes that this motion arguably preserved the issue of his identity as the murderer but was insufficient to preserve the issue of premeditation. We agree.
A motion for judgment of acquittal “must fully set forth the grounds on which it is based.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.380(b) (emphasis added); Woods v. State, 733 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1999). The language of defense counsel’s motion, while not quite boilerplate, did not bring to the attention of the trial court the specific ground Mr. Vargas now urges us to consider. See also Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982). Because of this failure, we cannot reach the merits of the issue whether the State provided sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that this murder was premeditated rather than committed in a fit of rage.
Affirmed.
FULMER and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morales v. State, 170 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…on” nor any synonyms thereof appear in the transcript of the argument in support of a judgment of acquittal or in any of the cases cited. As such, we cannot reach the merits of the issue on appeal as the issue was not preserved. See Vargas v. State, 845 So. 2d 220, 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (finding that while a motion for judgment of acquittal arguably preserved the issue of the defendant’s identity as the murderer, it was insufficient to preserve the issue of premeditation). Even assuming we could reach the m…
-
Bradwell v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., (Hillsborough County) (M.D. Fla. 2021)…cence (Doc. 12-4, Ex. 1, docket pp. 57-76). Never did defense counsel argue there was insufficient evidence showing Petitioner struck the victim and caused her death (Id.). Consequently, that issue was not preserved for appeal. See Vargas v. State, 845 So. 2d 220, 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (finding that while a motion for judgment of acquittal arguably preserved the issue of the defendant’s identity as the murderer, it was insufficient to preserve the issue of premeditation). Therefore, appellate counsel canno…
-
Zuelly v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Fla. 2021)…ears is procedurally defaulted. When Zuelly raised this argument on direct appeal, the State asserted that it was unpreserved because Zuelly did not challenge the evidence of age when he moved for a judgment of acquittal. See, e.g., Vargas v. State, 845 So. 2d 220, 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (finding that the question of whether the state presented sufficient evidence of premeditation was not preserved for appellate review because the motion for judgment of acquittal “did not bring to the attention of the trial…
Authorities Cited
- Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1982)
- Woods v. State, 733 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1999)
- Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1993)