Court Opinion

ID: 9958964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 15:03:07.002689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:20.165594
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed April 10, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D23-1337
                        Lower Tribunal No. F19-593
                           ________________

                              Shane Kopp,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

      An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from
the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge.

     Shane Kopp, in proper person.

      Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kayla Heather McNab, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.

     Affirmed. See Truehill v. State, 358 So. 3d 1167, 1186 n.12 (Fla. 2022)
(arguments raised for first time in reply brief are waived); Barnes v. State, 38

So. 3d 218, 219–20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“[T]he rules of criminal and

appellate procedure do not preclude a court from incorporating a response

from the State if the State has provided the necessary record documents.”

(citing Langdon v. State, 947 So. 2d 460, 461 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)));

McGee v. State, 903 So. 2d 1041, 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Although no

weapon or firearm was recovered, and, consequently, none was introduced

as evidence at trial, sufficient testimony was presented from which the jury

could reasonably conclude that [the defendant] possessed a firearm during

the commission of these offenses.”); Akins v. State, 838 So. 2d 637, 639

(Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (finding “[i]t is not fatal to the prosecution if the state

does not introduce the weapon into evidence” where the “direct evidence

and the circumstantial evidence” supported conviction).

                                       2