Summary
In Knighton v. State, 290 So.3d 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan. 31, 2020), we relied on Kline to conclude that where the trial court used similar language, any alleged error was not fundamental.
Summary of this case from Carpenter v. StateOpinion
No. 1D18-2133
01-31-2020
Michael Tirrell KNIGHTON, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Tallahassee; and Wendy S. Loquasto of Fox & Loquasto, LLC, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Tallahassee; and Wendy S. Loquasto of Fox & Loquasto, LLC, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Rowe, J.
Michael Tirrell Knighton, Sr. appeals his judgment and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of a controlled substance, and driving while license suspended or revoked. We affirm and write only to address his claim that the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard in denying his motion for new trial.
After the jury found Knighton guilty, he moved for a new trial on these grounds:
1. This Court committed prejudicial error in denying the Defendant's Motion for Judgments of Acquittal made at the close of the State's case.
2. This Court committed prejudicial error in denying the Defendant's Motion for Judgments of Acquittal made at the close of all the evidence.
3. The verdicts were contrary to the weight of the evidence.
4. The verdicts were contrary to the law.
The trial court denied the motion, stating the following:
All right. With nothing more to consider, I mean, I dealt with these issues at trial, and I don't know that I can—there's anything that would change my mind. I think there was sufficient evidence on all three counts to support the verdict of guilty and actual possession.
Knighton did not make any objection or seek clarification on the standard applied by the trial court in reviewing his new trial motion. Only now on appeal does Knighton argue that the trial court erred by reviewing his motion under a sufficiency of the evidence standard. Because this argument was not preserved, we affirm the trial court's ruling on the motion.
A motion for new trial requires a trial court to evaluate whether a jury's verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence and to act, in effect, as an additional juror. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.600(a)(2). Although a trial court need not use magic words when ruling on a motion for a new trial, it is reversible error for the trial court to use the wrong standard. Jordan v. State , 244 So. 3d 1178, 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).
At the same time, if it is unclear whether the trial court used the wrong standard, the potential that the trial court may have erred does not constitute fundamental error. See Kline v. State , 274 So. 3d 525, 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) ; see also Williams v. State , 278 So. 3d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). Rather, as this Court held in Kline , where the appellant fails to preserve the issue for appeal and it is unclear whether the trial court applied the wrong standard, a reviewing court must affirm. Kline , 274 So. 3d at 526.
Knighton challenged several of the trial court's rulings in his motion for new trial, including the rulings on his motions for judgment of acquittal. When the trial court denied the new trial motion, it found that "there was sufficient evidence on all three counts to support the verdict of guilty and actual possession." This finding can fairly be read as ruling on the propriety of the motions for judgment of acquittal. The trial court then denied the motion for new trial without further comment. Thus, it is unclear whether the trial court used the wrong standard when ruling on the motion. Because Knighton did not object or seek clarification on whether the trial court applied the correct standard when ruling on his new trial motion, he did not preserve the issue for appeal. And finding no error by the trial court on this record, we AFFIRM Knighton's judgment and sentences.
B.L. Thomas and Roberts, JJ., concur.