Carlos Couto v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: October 8, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-1081
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 8, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1081 Lower Tribunal No. F20-15088 ________________

Carlos Couto, Appellant,

vs.

State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa Tinkler Mendez, Judge.

Law Offices of Michelle Walsh, P.A., and Michelle R. Walsh, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, C.J., and GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Carlos Couto appeals his conviction and sentence for first-degree

grand theft. Couto asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by (i)

limiting defense counsel’s cross-examination of the victim,1 and (ii) limiting

defense counsel’s closing argument.2 The trial court was well within its

discretion in limiting defense counsel’s cross-examination of the victim

because defense counsel’s line of questioning concerned an area neither

germane to the victim’s testimony nor relevant to Couto’s theory of defense.

See Smith v. State, 38 So. 3d 871, 872-73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). The trial

court did not abuse its discretion in limiting defense counsel’s closing

argument because defense counsel’s argument was outside the scope of the

evidence. See Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179, 208 (Fla. 2020).

Affirmed.

1 See Perez v. State, 949 So. 2d 363, 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“On appeal, we review a trial court’s limitation of cross-examination for an abuse of discretion.”). 2 See Bigham v. State, 995 So. 2d 207, 215 (Fla. 2008) (“It is within the trial judge’s discretion to determine when an attorney’s argument is improper, and such determination will not be upset absent abuse of discretion by [the] lower court judge.”).