HOLLIS v. STATE (2024)

Affirmed. See Logue v. Book, 297 So. 3d 605, 611–12 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (explaining that “directed at a specific person” under section 784.048(1) “can include communications with third parties” including “social media postings that are not sent directly to an individual [but] may nonetheless be directed at an individual in a number of ways, including ․ sufficiently describing the person in such a way as to make their specific identification possible” and noting that “[s]uch posts may also be designed so as to be reasonably likely to come to the attention of the targeted person, even if indirectly) (emphasis added); see also Johnston v. State, 863 So. 2d 271, 283 (Fla. 2003) (“Generally, an appellate court will not reverse a conviction that is supported by competent, substantial evidence.”); Hernandez v. State, 979 So. 2d 1013, 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“The trial court's discretion is broad, and the decision to admit evidence will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.”).

PER CURIAM.