Opinion
No. 3D21-2292
09-30-2022
Angelo VELEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Robert T. Watson, Judge. Lower Tribunal No. F20-1032
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, HENDON and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156, 1166 (Fla. 2006) (a prosecutor’s comments in closing are not improper where they fall into the category of an "invited response" to defense counsel’s comments); Page v. State, 335 So. 3d 810 (Fla 3d DCA 2022); McKenney v. State, 967 So. 2d 951, 954-55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (defense counsel emphasized during trial that, although as many as fifty people were at the location of the shooting, the State presented the testimony of only one eyewitness; in closing argument, defense continued to emphasize this issue, and concluded by asking the jury "why haven’t other eyewitnesses come forward?"; in rebuttal, the prosecutor stated that "anyone with one ounce of common sense, can figure out that when a person is capable of gunning down an unarmed man in front of a bunch of people, not just with a little handgun, mind you, but with an assault rifle, who the heck is going to get involved in that kind of mess?"; this court affirmed, holding that "the prosecutor responded fairly to the defense’s question by discussing the inference, a matter of common sense, that the horrific crime scene and 30-plus rounds of assault rifle fire would not encourage a bystander to step forward.")