Joshua E. Burgos v. the State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 28, 2025
• Docket: 3D2023-1083
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 28, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1083 Lower Tribunal No. F17-21050 ________________

Joshua E. Burgos, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ariana Fajardo Orshan, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Baxter v. State, 318 So. 3d 601, 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Where ‘a rational trier of fact could lawfully find that the evidence proved

the existence of all the elements of the crime . . . beyond a reasonable doubt,’

the appellate court should defer to the trial court’s denial of a motion for

judgment of acquittal.” (quoting Sandhaus v. State, 200 So. 3d 112, 114 (Fla.

5th DCA 2016))); Senser v. State, 243 So. 3d 1003, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA

2018) (“Trial judges have wide discretion in decisions regarding jury

instructions, and the appellate courts will not reverse a decision regarding an

instruction in the absence of a prejudicial error that would result in a

miscarriage of justice.” (quoting Lewis v. State, 693 So. 2d 1055, 1058 (Fla.

4th DCA 1997))); Willoughby v. State, 296 So. 3d 574, 578 (Fla. 5th DCA

2020) (finding trial court’s erroneous inclusion of jury instruction on principals

harmless because jury returned verdict including specific findings that

defendant possessed and discharged firearm); Talley v. State, 260 So. 3d

562, 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“In order to preserve an allegedly improper

prosecutorial comment for review, a defendant must object to the comment

and move for a mistrial.” (quoting State v. Revenel, 184 So. 3d 629, 631 (Fla.

3d DCA 2016))).