Case Name: Jean Renel PAUL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2017-05-26
Citations: 219 So. 3d 272
Docket Number: Case No. 5D17-114
Parties: Jean Renel PAUL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ,, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 219
Pages: 272–272

Head Matter:
Jean Renel PAUL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Case No. 5D17-114
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Opinion filed May 26, 2017
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Sean Kevin Gravel, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Andrea K. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jean Renel Paul appeals his judgment and sentence, contending that the trial court erred by applying an incorrect legal standard to his motion for new trial. We agree and remand for further consideration of Paul's new trial motion.
The proper standard of review to address a defendant's motion for new trial is whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. See Lee v. State, 117 So.3d 848, 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Santiago v. State, 874 So.2d 617, 625 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). However, in this case, the trial court denied Paul's motion for a new trial using the sufficiency of the evidence standard. We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to consider Paul's motion for new trial pursuant to the weight of the evidence standard. See Loudermilk v. State, 211 So.3d 356, 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ,, concur.