JOE LEE, 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.
The court held that the trial court may have used an incorrect standard in ruling on the motion for a new trial, requiring a new hearing.
[1] A trial court must grant a new trial when the verdict is contrary to the law or the weight of the evidence.
[2] When ruling on a motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence, a trial court must exercise its discretion to determine if a greater amount of credible evide…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of robbery and aggravated battery. He moved for a new trial, arguing the testimony against him was inconsistent. The trial cou…
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 Motion For New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
CLARIFIED OPINION
The court, sua sponte, withdraws the opinion previously entered in this matter and substitutes this opinion.
The appellant, Joe Lee, was convicted of robbery with a firearm and aggravated battery with a firearm, and sentenced on each count in accordance with the 10-20-Life statute. He argues that the trial court used an incorrect standard in ruling on his motion for a new trial founded on his claim that the principal testimony against him at trial was fatally inconsistent. Because there is merit to Mr. Lee’s argument, we reverse and remand for a new hearing on his motion for new trial.
Rule 3.600(a)(2), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides that the court shall grant a new trial if, among other reasons, “[t]he verdict is contrary to law or the weight of the evidence.” When ruling on a motion for new trial based on a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the trial court is compelled to exercise its discretion to determine “whether a greater amount of credible evidence supports one side of an issue or the other.” Fulword v. State, 29 So.3d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing Geibel v. State, 817 So.2d 1042, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). The trial court under these circumstances acts as a “safety valve” by considering *850whether to grant a new trial where “the evidence is technically sufficient to prove the criminal charge but the weight of the evidence does not appear to support the jury verdict.” Moore v. State, 800 So.2d 747, 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
In the present case it is unclear whether or not the trial judge applied the correct standard in denying the motion for new trial. Indeed, the State agrees that because the record on the issue is ambiguous, a new hearing on Mr. Lee’s motion is appropriate. We agree and commend the State for its candor.
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motion for new trial and remand to the trial court for a new hearing on the motion for new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
SAWAYA, PALMER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bell v. State, 248 So. 3d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Mitchell v. State, 245 So. 3d 805 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
King v. State, 183 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Geibel v. State, 817 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Moore v. State, 800 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Fulword v. State, 29 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)