Andreyev Ross v. the State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 16, 2025
• Docket: 3D2023-0754
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 16, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0754 Lower Tribunal No. F17-1540B ________________

Andreyev Ross, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ramiro C. Areces, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Gosciminski v. State, 132 So. 3d 678, 697 (Fla. 2013)

(“The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court,

and the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed on appellate review

absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” (citation omitted)); § 90.403, Fla.

Stat. (2019) (“Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is

substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of

issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative

evidence.”) (emphasis added); see also Monestime v. State, 41 So. 3d 1110,

1112-13 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (concluding that photos of an AR15 rifle, along

with “cocaine and money” were necessary to allow the jury to understand

context of the charged offenses, noting: “To prove its case, the State is

entitled to present evidence which paints an accurate picture of the events

surrounding the crimes charged.” (quoting Griffin v. State, 639 So. 2d 966,

970 (Fla. 1994))); Dorsett v. State, 944 So. 2d 1207, 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA

2006) (finding evidence explaining why detective focused his surveillance on

defendant was relevant and necessary to establish the reliability of the

detective’s identification of the defendant and the absence of mistake); Vail

v. State, 890 So. 2d 373, 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (concluding no abuse of

discretion was shown in trial court permitting testimony regarding a gun

found in the van, along with contraband at issue, because it was inextricably

2 intertwined with the investigation and arrest); Irving v. State, 627 So. 2d 92,

94-95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (concluding it was not an abuse of discretion to

admit, as relevant to establishing the context of the charged offense, a gun

found with the defendant at the time of arrest, even though it was not the gun

used in the offense).