FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3026

_____________________________

MICHAEL BRIAN NOLAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Bruce Anderson, Judge.

August 23, 2019

PER CURIAM.

A father took his daughter on a Florida trip to visit colleges. 

Their trip included a stop at a Jacksonville Holiday Inn Express, 

where Michael Nolan robbed the father. As the father and 

daughter were tending to their luggage by their car, Nolan rushed 

up, threatened the father with a knife, and demanded his wallet 

and phone. The father complied, and Nolan jumped in a car and 

drove off. Nolan had been wearing a Halloween-type mask and a 

baseball cap, but both father and daughter still got a good look at 

him.

The daughter immediately called police, who (using the stolen 

iPhone’s tracking feature) promptly found Nolan’s car in a 

Walmart parking lot. Police waited by the car, and when Nolan 
2

returned to the car, they arrested him after a brief chase. In or 

around the car, police found the stolen phone, items from the 

father’s wallet, other items not belonging to Nolan, a knife, and a 

Halloween-type mask. Police brought the father and daughter to 

the Walmart parking lot, and they both identified Nolan as the 

robber. Police then gathered surveillance video from both the 

Holiday Inn Express and the Walmart.

At trial, the father and daughter testified that Nolan was the 

culprit. The jury saw surveillance videos from both locations, and 

it heard testimony from an officer regarding what he saw on the 

Walmart video. After considering all the evidence, the jury 

convicted Nolan as charged: one count of armed robbery with a 

deadly weapon and one count of resisting arrest without violence. 

The court imposed a ten-year sentence.

Nolan presents two issues on appeal. First, he argues that the 

trial court erred in allowing a detective to testify about the 

contents of the Walmart video. Second, he argues that the trial 

court applied the wrong standard in denying his motion for new 

trial. We find no merit in either argument, so we affirm.

Video from inside Walmart showed Nolan trying to make a 

purchase using credit cards that were the same color as credit 

cards stolen from the father. The video was introduced without 

objection, and a detective testified that he identified Nolan as the 

man in the video. Nolan argues this invaded the province of the 

jury and should have been excluded. We review only for an abuse 

of discretion. Salazar v. State, 991 So. 2d 364, 373 (Fla. 2008).

Outside of the jury’s presence, the detective testified that he 

spent time with Nolan the day of the arrest and that Nolan’s 

appearance had changed since then. Nolan’s hair and facial hair 

were different, his complexion had changed, and he had put on 

weight. The trial court found that there were, indeed, changes. 

Under these circumstances, there was no abuse in discretion in 

allowing the detective to testify that he had identified the man on 

the video as Nolan. See Johnson v. State, 93 So. 3d 1066, 1069 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2012) (“This detective had an extensive opportunity to 

observe Johnson in person in Alabama shortly after the crime was 

committed. After his arrest, Johnson changed his appearance by 

gaining weight and bleaching his skin. Under these circumstances, 
3

the detective's testimony was properly admitted, because how 

Johnson looked at the time of the crime was outside the realm of 

the jurors’ knowledge and experience and the detective’s special 

familiarity with Johnson was of assistance to the jury.”); see also 

Alvarez v. State, 147 So. 3d 537, 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“Even 

non-eyewitnesses may testify as to the identification of persons 

depicted or heard on a recording so long as it is clear the witness 

is in a better position than the jurors to make those 

determinations.”). Regardless, if there were error in this regard, 

we are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it was harmless. 

See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986).

Nolan’s remaining argument is that the trial court applied the 

wrong standard in ruling on part of his motion for new trial. The 

motion advanced multiple grounds for new trial, including that the 

court erred in not granting a judgment of acquittal and that “[t]he 

verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” At the hearing 

on the motion, the judge noted that the defense was making “the 

same arguments that were made during the course of the trial” 

and that he would “stand by my rulings and findings made at that 

time” and deny the motion. Nolan argues that this shows the trial 

court failed to apply the correct weight-of-the-evidence standard, 

applicable to part of his motion. When a trial court applies the 

wrong standard on a new-trial motion, we have reversed for 

reconsideration. See, e.g., Palmer v. State, 196 So. 3d 1289, 1289

(Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

In this case, though, we have no basis to reverse. It is clear 

that the court’s statements in denying the motion were directed at 

the arguments addressed at the hearing, and those arguments did 

not include that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of 

the evidence. Counsel argued that the court had erred with some 

evidentiary rulings, and the court said it would reject those 

arguments for the same reasons it made its evidentiary rulings in 

the first place. So as in Bell v. State, “there is nothing to indicate 

the trial judge[] applied the wrong standard.” 248 So. 3d 208, 210 

(Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (“While the judges’ oral rulings only addressed 

the standard for the sufficiency arguments, it does not follow that 

the judges applied the sufficiency standard to the weight-of-theevidence arguments.”). 
4

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Maria Ines Suber, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan 

Picard, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for 

Appellee.