SANTANA v. STATE (2026)

Affirmed. See Mintz v. State, 349 So. 3d 531, 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“In closing argument, counsel is permitted to review the evidence and fairly discuss and comment upon properly admitted testimony and logical inferences from that evidence. The proper exercise of closing argument is to review the evidence and to explicate those inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.” (citations omitted)); State v. Perez, 402 So. 3d 1130, 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (holding “[a]ttorneys should be afforded great latitude in their closing arguments” and that a closing argument is proper so long as they “confine their arguments to the facts and evidence presented to the jury and all logical deductions from the facts and evidence” (citation omitted)); Kirkpatrick v. State, 346 So. 3d 687, 695 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (“[P]rosecutors have wide latitude in closing argument to argue and to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.”); Covington v. State, 842 So. 2d 170, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“It is of course permissible for counsel to argue, based on the record, that one witness should be believed and another should not.”); Liscinsky v. State, 700 So. 2d 171, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“The trial court did not err by allowing an officer to testify that a witness to the crime identified Appellant, by name, as the perpetrator at the initial investigation immediately following the incident. Such testimony is not hearsay when the identifying witness is before the court and testifies to that effect at trial.”).

PER CURIAM.