Antonio Morales v. State of Florida, 170 So. 3d 63

Morales was charged with attempted first-degree murder for a nightclub parking-lot shooting on August 6, 2011; victim Kevelin Holmes was shot in the abdomen and identified Morales in court.
Eyewitness Leon Oliver testified the rear passenger exited the vehicle, fired multiple shots, re-entered and another round fired before the car left; surveillance video showed the victim and vehicle but not the shooting clearly.
Police recovered .380 casings and a .380 pistol under the rear passenger seat; gunshot residue on Morales; jail-call recordings contained inculpatory statements.
Defense moved for judgment of acquittal at close of State’s case arguing insufficiency of evidence as to identity (relying on Lindsey and Ballard) and attacked the value of physical evidence and eyewitness credibility; the judge denied the motion.
Defense renewed the motion after trial and did not object to jury instructions on premeditation; jury convicted Morales of attempted first-degree murder and he was sentenced to 45 years under 10/20/Life.
On appeal Morales argued the evidence was insufficient to prove premeditation; the court affirmed, finding the premeditation issue was not preserved and, alternatively, that sufficient evidence supported submission to the jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove premeditation for attempted first-degree murder	Morales: evidence insufficient to show premeditated intent to kill	State: eyewitness ID, multiple shots after confrontation, and physical evidence support premeditation	Affirmed — issue not preserved; alternatively, evidence sufficient to go to jury
Whether denial of motion for judgment of acquittal was reviewable on appeal	Morales: appellate review proper on sufficiency of premeditation	State: motion below only challenged identity, not premeditation; thus not preserved	Issue not preserved for appeal; motion did not raise premeditation
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move on premeditation	Morales: counsel’s omission was obvious prejudice warranting relief	State: counsel’s failure not facially ineffective because evidence supported premeditation	Denied on direct appeal — ineffectiveness not obvious from record
Whether case was purely circumstantial such that Lindsey/Ballard applied	Morales: case was circumstantial and insufficient	State: in-court ID and physical evidence made it not purely circumstantial	Court found case was not purely circumstantial and those cases targeted identity, not premeditation

Lindsey v. State, 14 So.3d 211 (Fla. 2009) (circumstantial-evidence sufficiency analysis regarding identity)
Ballard v. State, 923 So.2d 475 (Fla. 2006) (circumstantial-evidence review focused on identity/participation)
Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332 (Fla. 1982) (issues must be adequately presented below to be cognizable on appeal)
Vargas v. State, 845 So.2d 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (motion preserved identity but not premeditation)
DeAngelo v. State, 616 So.2d 440 (Fla. 1993) (premeditation can form in a moment; jury question)
Asay v. State, 580 So.2d 610 (Fla. 1991) (brief confrontations can still support jury finding of premeditation)
Stephens v. State, 787 So.2d 747 (Fla. 2001) (bare-bones motions for acquittal do not preserve unargued issues)
G.W.B. v. State, 340 So.2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (motion for judgment of acquittal must fully state grounds to preserve appellate review)