Opinion ID: 1688132
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellant Ellis

Text: Appellant Ellis maintains that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of the aggravated robbery alleged to have been committed against Dolphus. In response, the State asserts, and we agree, that Ellis's argument was not properly preserved for our review as his motion for directed verdict was not premised on the specific grounds now argued on appeal. In addition, we note that he did not properly renew his motion for directed verdict. At the close of the State's case, Ellis's attorney stated as follows: Your Honor, we would make the motion for a directed verdict. First of allI mean, outright on both counts as to Mr. Ellis. The State has not met their burden of proof as to the charge of aggravated robbery or as to the charge of battery first or in the alternative a reduction on the counts from aggravated robbery to simple robbery and from battery first to battery in the second degree because there was no medical testimony. There was just the testimony of the two victims that stated the extent of their injuries. In examining the content of this motion, it is clear to us that the specific ground articulated to the trial court related to the fact that there was no medical testimony concerning the victims' injuries. Ellis did not argue, as he does now on appeal, that the State failed to establish a particular element of the aggravated robbery chargethat he committed or intended to commit a theft against Dolphus. In addition, at the close of all the evidence, counsel for Ellis merely stated, At this time we rest and renew all our motions previously made, to which the trial court replied, All right. I show your motions made; same rulings. The failure of Ellis's defense counsel to include the argument that he neither took nor intended to take property from Dolphus as a ground for directed verdict, or to renew the motion at the close of the entire case, rendered the motion insufficient to preserve his argument for our review. See Jones v. State, supra ; Daffron v. State, supra .