SHANE KOPP
v.
THE 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.
Arguments presented for the first time in a reply brief are waived, and circumstantial testimony can support a conviction for offenses involving a firearm even without the weapon being recovered or introduced as evidence.
[1] Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived and not considered on appeal.
[2] A conviction for an offense involving a firearm may be sustained based on circumstantial and direct testimony without introduction of the weapon itself as evidence.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShane Kopp appealed his conviction from Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. The case involved charges where no firearm was recovered as evidence.…
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 Waiver Of Arguments cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Truehill v. State, 358 So. 3d 1167, 1186 n.12 (Fla. 2022) (arguments raised for first time in reply brief are waived); Barnes v. State, 38 So. 3d 218, 219–20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“[T]he rules of criminal and appellate procedure do not preclude a court from incorporating a response from the State if the State has provided the necessary record documents.” (citing Langdon v. State, 947 So. 2d 460, 461 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006))); McGee v. State, 903 So. 2d 1041, 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Although no weapon or firearm was recovered, and, consequently, none was introduced as evidence at trial, sufficient testimony was presented from which the jury could reasonably conclude that [the defendant] possessed a firearm during the commission of these offenses.”); Akins v. State, 838 So. 2d 637, 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (finding “[i]t is not fatal to the prosecution if the state does not introduce the weapon into evidence” where the “direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence” supported conviction).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Langdon v. State, 947 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Akins v. State, 838 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Truehill v. State of Fla. & Quentin Marcus Truehill v. Ricky D. Dixon, 358 So. 3d 1167 (Fla. 2022)
- McGEE v. State, 903 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)