ANGERMAN v. STATE (2025)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Adam ANGERMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D23-0706

Decided: December 31, 2025

Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

Brooke Elvington Appellate Law, and Brooke Elvington (Dunedin), for appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Affirmed. See Concepcion v. State, 188 So. 3d 5, 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“The disparity between the State's pre-trial plea offer and the sentence imposed by the trial court after trial, standing alone, does not create a presumption of vindictiveness nor require resentencing.”); see also Linn v. State, 921 So. 2d 830, 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (noting that element of knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence); Washington v. State, 737 So. 2d 1208, 1215–16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (“The law is clear that a trial court should rarely, if ever, grant a motion for judgment of acquittal on the issue of intent. This is because proof of intent usually consists of the surrounding circumstances of the case.” (citation omitted)).

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Out of date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