Carmelo Padilla v. the State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 10, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D19-1164 Lower Tribunal No. 17-11241 ________________ Carmelo Padilla, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa Tinkler Mendez, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, MILLER and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.  Affirmed. See Davis v. State, 207 So. 3d 177, 193 (Fla. 2016) (“To be admissible, a prior inconsistent statement must either directly contradict or materially differ from the . . . testimony at trial.” (citing Pearce v. State, 880 So. 2d 561, 569 (Fla. 2004))); Brooks v. State, 918 So. 2d 181, 200 (Fla. 2005) (“Florida courts have held that a witness’s inability to recall making a prior statement is not synonymous with providing trial testimony that is inconsistent with a prior statement.”), receded from on other grounds by State v. Sturdivant, 94 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2012); Espinoza v. State, 37 So. 3d 387, 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). 2