DIXON v. STATE (2019)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Ambrose DIXON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-52

Decided: August 14, 2019

Before EMAS, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and MILLER, JJ.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jeffrey R. Geldens, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Affirmed. See Mosley v. State, 46 So. 3d 510, 526 (Fla. 2009) (noting: “If the State presents both direct and circumstantial evidence, courts do not apply the special standard of review applicable to circumstantial evidence cases” (citing Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002))). See also Lincoln v. State, 459 So. 2d 1030, 1032 (Fla. 1984) (acknowledging that merely driving a getaway car in an elusive manner in an attempt to avoid police is, without more, insufficient for a factfinder to infer complicity in intent to commit a crime; but affirming defendant's conviction as a principal to robbery because the evidence was legally sufficient to permit the jury to reject Lincoln's hypothesis of innocence and conclude she knew in advance that her husband was going to commit a robbery and that she had the intent to assist him); Henderson v. State, 679 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (affirming conviction where, in light of the evidence, defendant's hypothesis of innocence created a legitimate question for the jury to determine).

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Out of date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