Jonathan E. Rivera-Enriquez v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 6, 2026
• Docket: 3D2024-2154
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 6, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-2154 Lower Tribunal No. 23-CF-135-A-P ________________

Jonathan E. Rivera-Enriquez, Appellant,

vs.

State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, James W. Morgan, III, and Luis Garcia, Judges.

The Law Office of Robert David Malove, P.A., and Hani Demetrious (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Kayla Heather McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Espinosa, 686 So. 2d 1345, 1347 (Fla. 1996)

(“Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.510(b) the giving of an

instruction on a lesser offense is a matter of discretion for the trial judge, who

must determine whether the charging document and evidence at trial support

the giving of the instruction on the lesser offense as a permissive lesser-

included offense. . . . An instruction on a permissive lesser included offense

should be precluded only where there is a total lack of evidence of the lesser

offense.” (quotations omitted)); Thach v. State, 342 So. 3d 620, 623–24 (Fla.

2022) (“The state may substantively amend an information midtrial unless it

prejudices the defendant’s substantial rights. . . . Prejudice, in this context,

depends not on any one factor, but on the totality of the circumstances at the

time of the amendment.” (citation modified)); Perez v. State, 536 So. 2d 206,

210 (Fla. 1988) (“Absent a showing of an abuse of discretion . . . the trial

judge’s determination that the out-of-court statements bear sufficient indicia

of reliability will be upheld.”); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203

(Fla. 1980) (“Discretion . . . is abused when the judicial action is arbitrary,

fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is

abused only where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the

trial court.” (quotation omitted)).