Collett v. State
| Decision Date | 26 February 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D08-5645.,2D08-5645. |
| Citation | 28 So.3d 224 |
| Parties | Jeffrey Robert COLLETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Jeffrey Robert Collett challenges his judgments and sentences for armed burglary of a structure, battery, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Because it is not clear from the record whether the trial court utilized the correct standard in evaluating and denying his motion for new trial, we are compelled to reverse and remand for reconsideration of the motion using the proper standard.
Collett allegedly entered a home in the middle of the night while armed with a handgun. Once inside, Collett threatened the occupants of the home, specifically grabbing and pointing the gun at one victim. At trial, Collett was identified by numerous witnesses as the man who entered the home, and the BB-pistol that Collett surrendered to police upon his arrest was identified as the gun he brandished while threatening the victims. Collett testified and admitted that he was present at the home but denied possessing a gun. After he was convicted, Collett's counsel moved for a new trial, alleging that the verdicts were contrary to the weight of the evidence because the evidence failed to support the finding that he used a deadly weapon.1 Specifically, he alleged that the victims' descriptions of the gun as small did not match the dimensions of the BB-pistol, a gun designed to look like a 9mm handgun. Without the BB-pistol, Collett argued, there was no evidence that a deadly weapon was used. The trial court denied the motion for new trial as it related to this issue, making the following findings on the record:
In regard to the issue surrounding the firearm or gun, dangerous weapon, deadly weapon — dangerous weapon, I guess, I believe that there is sufficient evidence that supports the verdict. The jury is the tryer [sic] of fact and they listened to all the evidence and they wade through that and they can believe or disbelieve all or any part of the testimony. I don't know what they believed or disbelieved, but I know that they reached a unanimous verdict and returned that verdict. So as to that, I deny the motion for new trial.
On appeal Collett argues that the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard in evaluating whether the verdict was contrary to the law or weight of the evidence. Specifically, Collett argues that the trial court employed the standard for a motion for judgment of acquittal — sufficiency of the evidence — rather than the standard required for a motion for new trial — weight of the evidence. Collett is correct that the language used by the trial court to deny the motion suggests the use of a sufficiency of the evidence standard.
Regardless of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Villalobos v. State
...the application of the correct law by the trial court in exercising its discretion, our standard of review is de novo. Collett v. State, 28 So.3d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). In determining whether juror Arvidson should have continued to serve as a juror in light of his newly-disclosed informati......
-
Lively v. Grandhige
...matter may be remanded for the trial court to consider the motion based upon the proper legal standard. See, e.g., Collett v. State, 28 So. 3d 224, 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ("[W]e are unable to ascertain, as a matter of law, whether the trial court utilized the improper standard as is suggest......
-
Meyers v. Shontz, Case No. 2D17-1681
...was thus premised on an error of law, and we therefore owe no deference to its decision to grant a new trial. Cf. Collett v. State, 28 So.3d 224, 225-26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing judgment in criminal case when, in denying a motion for new trial, the trial court applied an incorrect "suf......
-
B.L.R. v. State
...the trial court employed the proper legal standard is an issue of law subject to de novo review. See generally Collett v. State, 28 So.3d 224, 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). In E.A.R., the Florida Supreme Court “announced a new, more rigorous analysis in which a trial court must engage before depa......
-
Post-trial motions
...whether the weight of the evidence supported the verdict. The court should not use a sufficiency of evidence standard. Collett v. State, 28 So. 3d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) The court errs in refusing to grant a hearing when defendant seeks a new trial alleging newly discovered evidence in the ......