Castillo v. State, 217 So. 3d 1110

Castillo and co-defendants were charged with second-degree murder for the January 7, 2010 beating death of Luis Rodriguez; the information alleged Castillo carried/used a deadly weapon (bat/stick/rock).
Witnesses described a group attack; some identified participants (including Castillo) and others described blows with a bat or rock, but no witness testified that Castillo personally used a stick or other weapon.
Mauricio Ordonez initially told police he saw Castillo hit the victim with a long stick, but at trial recanted, admitting his earlier statement was a lie told to "get justice." Defense elicited the prior statement on cross.
The jury convicted Castillo of second-degree murder and found he "carried, displayed, or used a deadly weapon." The trial court reclassified the offense from a first-degree felony to a life felony under Fla. Stat. § 775.087(1)(a) and sentenced Castillo to life.
On appeal, Castillo challenged (1) prosecutorial comments in closing (found harmless) and (2) the reclassification, arguing the State failed to prove his actual possession/use of a deadly weapon; the State relied on Ordonez’s prior inconsistent statement to police.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient substantive evidence that Castillo personally carried/used a deadly weapon to permit reclassification under § 775.087(1)(a)	The State: jury could credit Ordonez’s prior statement to police that Castillo hit the victim with a long stick	Castillo: no admissible substantive evidence showed he personally possessed or used a weapon; prior police statement was only impeachment and not substantive proof	Reclassification reversed: Ordonez’s prior statement to police was not admissible as substantive evidence under § 90.801(2)(a), and without other evidence of Castillo’s possession/use of a weapon, the enhancement cannot stand; remand for resentencing without reclassification.
Whether defense objection to State closing comments warranted reversal of the conviction	The State: comments did not require reversal	Castillo: comments were improper and prejudicial	Harmless error: conviction for second-degree murder affirmed.

Monroe v. State, 191 So. 3d 395 (Fla. 2016) (caution in applying fundamental-error review to unpreserved sufficiency claims)
F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2003) (two narrow exceptions allow unpreserved sufficiency review: death penalty cases and complete failure of evidence that a crime occurred)
Pearce v. State, 880 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2004) (prior statements to police are generally not "other proceedings" and thus not admissible as substantive evidence under § 90.801(2)(a))
State v. Rodriguez, 602 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1992) (statutory enhancement under § 775.087(1) requires personal possession/use, not vicarious enhancement)
Troedel v. State, 462 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1984) (conviction wholly unsupported by evidence is fundamental error)
Stanton v. State, 746 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (same)
Moore v. State, 485 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1986) (a prior inconsistent statement standing alone is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Santiago v. State, 652 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (insufficiency where only evidence is state witness’s prior inconsistent statement)
Connolly v. State, 172 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (reclassification cannot be based on a co-defendant’s possession/use of a weapon)