RAYMOND LILLARD, III
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court's denial of a motion for new trial is not preserved for appeal when the defendant does not object or seek clarification, and the ruling can be fairly interpreted as addressing both the motion for new trial and the motion for judgment of acquittal without fundamental error, and sentencing errors regarding the statutory basis for mandatory minimums must be corrected on remand.
[1] A trial court's ruling on a motion for new trial is not preserved for appellate review when the defendant does not object or seek clarification regarding the trial court'…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLillard was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon while wearing a mask and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He appealed challenging t…
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
PER CURIAM.
Raymond Lillard, III, appeals his judgment and sentence for robbery with a deadly weapon while wearing a mask and for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. We affirm, but we remand for correction of Lillard’s sentences.
First, Lillard challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing the trial court incorrectly evaluated the sufficiency of the evidence instead of applying the correct analysis for a motion for new trial, whether the greater weight of the evidence supported the verdict. See generally Velloso v. State, 117 So. 3d 903, 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). However, Lillard did not object or seek clarification following the trial court’s pronouncement of its ruling, so the issue is not preserved for review. See Knighton v. State, 290 So. 3d 1035, 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). Because the trial court’s ruling could be fairly interpreted as addressing both the motion for new trial and Lillard’s motion for judgment of acquittal, no fundamental error exists, and we affirm on this point. See id.
2
Lillard also argues that his sentences must be corrected to reflect that his mandatory minimum sentences were imposed pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (2016), instead of the inapplicable statutes cited. We agree, and the state concedes error. Accordingly, we remand for correction of the errors, and we note that Lillard need not be present for this correction. See generally Sirota v. State, 977 So. 2d 700, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Frost v. State, 769 So. 2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
As to all other issues, we affirm without further discussion. See Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022); Chapa v. State, 159 So. 3d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Affirmed and remanded for correction of sentences. DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
- Rudder v. State, 769 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Velloso v. State, 117 So. 3d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Major Battle Mills v. State, 977 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)