Court Opinion

ID: 9948155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 16:06:34.743091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:13.008514
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                              FOURTH DISTRICT

                         RAYMOND LILLARD, III,
                              Appellant,

                                      v.

                           STATE OF FLORIDA,
                                Appellee.

                             No. 4D2022-1387

                              [March 6, 2024]

  Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.
Lucie County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2017CF001210A.

  Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant
Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

  Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lindsay A. Warner,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

   Raymond Lillard, III, appeals his judgment and sentence for robbery
with a deadly weapon while wearing a mask and for possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon. We affirm, but we remand for correction of Lillard’s
sentences.

    First, Lillard challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new
trial, arguing the trial court incorrectly evaluated the sufficiency of the
evidence instead of applying the correct analysis for a motion for new trial,
whether the greater weight of the evidence supported the verdict. See
generally Velloso v. State, 117 So. 3d 903, 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
However, Lillard did not object or seek clarification following the trial
court’s pronouncement of its ruling, so the issue is not preserved for
review. See Knighton v. State, 290 So. 3d 1035, 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).
Because the trial court’s ruling could be fairly interpreted as addressing
both the motion for new trial and Lillard’s motion for judgment of acquittal,
no fundamental error exists, and we affirm on this point. See id.
    Lillard also argues that his sentences must be corrected to reflect that
his mandatory minimum sentences were imposed pursuant to section
775.087(2), Florida Statutes (2016), instead of the inapplicable statutes
cited. We agree, and the state concedes error. Accordingly, we remand for
correction of the errors, and we note that Lillard need not be present for
this correction. See generally Sirota v. State, 977 So. 2d 700, 701 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2008); Frost v. State, 769 So. 2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

   As to all other issues, we affirm without further discussion. See
Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022); Chapa v. State, 159
So. 3d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

   Affirmed and remanded for correction of sentences.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

                            *        *         *

   Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                     2