Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 29, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D24-2109 Lower Tribunal No. F16-8641 ________________ Cedric Coleman, Appellant, vs. State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Andrea R. Wolfson, Judge. Stephan Lopez Law Firm, LLC., and Stephan Lopez, for appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Liz Feliz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, C.J., and BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179, 200–01 (Fla. 2020) (“The standard of review historically applied to a determination of the legal sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction, at least where there is some direct evidence, is simply whether the State presented competent, substantial evidence to support the verdict. . . . This standard should now be used in all cases where the sufficiency of the evidence is analyzed.”); Smith v. State, 7 So. 3d 473, 509 (Fla. 2009) (“Furthermore, the courts of this state allow attorneys wide latitude to argue to the jury during closing argument. Logical inferences may be drawn, and counsel is allowed to advance all legitimate arguments.”) (citations omitted); Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d 1225, 1232 (Fla. 1990) (“We find the officers’ testimony within the permissible range of lay observation and ordinary police experience. Hence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this particular testimony.”); Triana v. State, 433 So. 3d 530, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (“[A] conviction is supported by sufficient evidence where a rational trier of fact could find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State.”) (quoting Azin v. State, 400 So. 3d 733, 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)); Johnson v. State, 351 So. 3d 252, 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (“Demonstrative exhibits can be used when they are relevant and provide a reasonably accurate reproduction of 2 the objects and incident involved. Whether a demonstrative exhibit constitutes a sufficiently accurate reproduction is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court.”) (internal citation omitted); Mintz v. State, 349 So. 3d 531, 532–33 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“The primary purpose of closing argument is to give the parties an opportunity to summarize the evidence and explain how the facts derived therefrom should be applied to the law as instructed by the trial court. In closing argument, counsel is permitted to review the evidence and fairly discuss and comment upon properly admitted testimony and logical inferences from that evidence. The proper exercise of closing argument is to review the evidence and to explicate those inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.”) (citations omitted). 3