Sanantonio v. State

Full title: Anissa Nicole Sanantonio, Appellant, v. The State of Florida, Appellee.

Court: Florida Court of Appeals, Third District

Date published: Jul 7, 2021

No. 3D21-261 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jul. 7, 2021)

Opinion

3D21-261

07-07-2021

Anissa Nicole Sanantonio, Appellant, v. The State of Florida, Appellee.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Katherine Fernandez Rundle, State Attorney, and Lindsey M. Johnson, Assistant State Attorney; Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Christine Bandin, Judge. Lower Tribunal Nos. M19-12920, 20-29 AC

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Katherine Fernandez Rundle, State Attorney, and Lindsey M. Johnson, Assistant State Attorney; Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, HENDON and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. See J.B. v. State, 73 So.3d 361 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); State v. Clyatt, 976 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). See also Bush v. State, 295 So.3d 179, 200-01 (Fla. 2020) (abolishing the "special" standard of appellate review for circumstantial evidence cases, and holding that the standard of review to be applied to a determination of the legal sufficiency of evidence in support of a criminal conviction (regardless of the circumstantial nature of the evidence) is whether the State presented competent, substantial evidence and, viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the State, whether a rational trier of fact could have found the State established the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt).