George Walton v. State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed April 22, 2026.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D24-0485
                      Lower Tribunal No. F20-5503B
                          ________________


                             George Walton,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                            State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.


      An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Miguel M. de
la O, Judge.

     Eugene F. Zenobi, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Third
Region, and Kristin Kawass, Assistant Regional Counsel, for appellant.

      James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Katryna Santa Cruz, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.


Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and GORDO, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
     Affirmed. See Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179, 200-01 (Fla. 2020) (“The

standard of review historically applied to a determination of the legal

sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction, at least where there

is some direct evidence, is simply whether the State presented competent,

substantial evidence to support the verdict. Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120,

1123 (Fla. 1981); Spinkellink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666, 671 (Fla. 1975). To

apply this standard to a criminal case, an appellate court must ‘view[ ] the

evidence in the light most favorable to the State’ and, maintaining this

perspective, ask whether ‘a rational trier of fact could have found the

existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Rogers

v. State, 285 So. 3d 872, 891 (Fla. 2019) (quoting Bradley v. State, 787 So.

2d 732, 738 (Fla. 2001)); see also Tibbs, 397 So. 2d at 1123 (‘[T]he concern

on appeal must be whether, after all conflicts in the evidence and all

reasonable inferences therefrom have been resolved in favor of the verdict

on appeal, there is substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict

and the judgment.’); accord De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912, 916 (Fla.

1957) (defining ‘[s]ubstantial evidence’ as ‘such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion’ and

instructing that evidence is ‘competent’ if it is ‘sufficiently relevant and

material’). This standard should now be used in all cases where the



                                      2
sufficiency of the evidence is analyzed.”); 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

2023), rev. denied, No. SC2023-0668, 2023 WL 6389749 (Fla. Sept. 29,

2023) (“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.”); 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.”); Knight v. State, 107 So. 3d 449, 463 (Fla. 5th DCA

2013), approved, 186 So. 3d 1005 (Fla. 2016) (“[T]he state is admittedly

relying on circumstantial evidence to prove the knowledge element. But, of

course, state of mind elements such as knowledge, intent or premeditation

are usually established through circumstantial evidence.”); Calloway v.

State, 210 So. 3d 1160, 1199 (Fla. 2017) (“[I]t is the duty of the jury, not [the

appellate] Court, to weigh conflicting evidence.”).




                                       3