Nathaniel Jerome Barnett, Jr., Appellant, v. The State of Florida, Appellee. (2025)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nathaniel Jerome Barnett, Jr., Appellant, v. The State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D22-1891

Decided: March 12, 2025

Before LOGUE, C.J., and GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

Piotrowski Law, and Jaime Lapidus, for appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Affirmed. See Pearce v. State, 880 So. 2d 561, 569 (Fla. 2004) (“To be inconsistent, a prior statement must either directly contradict or be materially different from the expected testimony at trial. The inconsistency must involve a material, significant fact rather than mere details.”); Johnson v. State, 256 So. 3d 208, 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (affirming denial of new trial where defense counsel was suspended from practice of law during trial due to CLE delinquency but reinstated within 60-day grace period, as counsel “was never technically suspended from the practice of law because his reinstatement was retroactive”); Porter v. State, 384 So. 3d 839, 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) (affirming denial of motion for judgment of acquittal on second-degree murder charge as to defendant who admitted “animosity” and “rivalry” with victim that could support jury finding of depraved mind element).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network