PEREZ v. STATE (2025)

Affirmed. See Johnston v. State, 863 So. 2d 271, 283 (Fla. 2003) (“[A] appellate court will not reverse a conviction that is supported by competent, substantial evidence. 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.” (internal citation omitted)); Coicou v. State, 39 So. 3d 237, 241 (Fla. 2010) (stating that the elements of attempted second-degree murder are: “(1) the defendant intentionally committed an act that could have resulted, but did not result, in the death of someone, and (2) the act was imminently dangerous to another and demonstrated a depraved mind without regard for human life”) (citation omitted); Wiley v. State, 60 So. 3d 588, 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“[A]n act is imminently dangerous to another and evinces a ‘depraved mind’ if it is an act or series of acts that: (1) a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another; and (2) is done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent; and (3) is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.”); Giraldo v. State, 387 So. 3d 1242, 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (finding that the State offered competent substantial evidence that viewed, in the light most favorable to the State, a reasonable jury could find that the elements of second-degree murder were established beyond a reasonable doubt); Moradi v. State, 410 So.3d 606, 617 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) (appellate court found that defendant cutting the victim eight times and defendant's behavior after he cut the victim – hiding and not contacting police to report what happened or report the victim's injury - undermined defendant's self-defense theory).

PER CURIAM.