Moises Abraham Jaime v. the State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 23, 2025
• Docket: 3D2023-2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 23, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-2020 Lower Tribunal No. F22-9421 ________________

Moises Abraham Jaime, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carmen Cabarga, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Amy Weber, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

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

Before EMAS, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Johnston v. State, 863 So. 2d 271, 283 (Fla. 2003)

(“There is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction if, after viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could

find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”);

Garcia v. State, 373 So. 3d 1213, 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA) (“This standard of

appellate review applies regardless of whether, at trial, the State presented

only purely circumstantial evidence of guilt as to the charge crime.”), review

denied, No. SC2023-0668, 2023 WL 6389749 (Fla. Sept. 29, 2023); State v.

Shearod, 992 So. 2d 900, 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“The State met its

threshold burden of producing evidence on every element of the crime

charged, overcoming the motion for judgment of acquittal and permitting the

questions of credibility to be resolved by the jury.”); Scott v. State, 330 So.

3d 562, 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (holding there was competent, substantial

evidence to “overcome appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal” because

the “State put the evidence together like pieces of a puzzle, not by a stacking

of inferences”); Godbolt v. State, 319 So. 3d 773, 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)

(“Because the victim did not totally repudiate her pretrial statements—which

the trial court determined carried the requisite safeguards of reliability for

admission as substantive evidence—we cannot say that the evidence was

insufficient to show that a crime was committed at all.”).