final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion
under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Bruce
Thomas, Public Defender, and Maria Ines Suber, Assistant
Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan Picard,
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for Appellee.
father took his daughter on a Florida trip to visit colleges.
Their trip included a stop at a Jacksonville Holiday Inn
Express, where Michael Nolan robbed the father. As the father
and daughter were tending to their luggage by their car,
Nolan rushed up, threatened the father with a knife, and
demanded his wallet and phone. The father complied, and Nolan
jumped in a car and drove off. Nolan had been wearing a
Halloween-type mask and a baseball cap, but both father and
daughter still got a good look at him.
daughter immediately called police, who (using the stolen
iPhone's tracking feature) promptly found Nolan's car
in a Walmart parking lot. Police waited by the car, and when
Nolan returned to the car, they arrested him after a brief
chase. In or around the car, police found the stolen phone,
items from the father's wallet, other items not belonging
to Nolan, a knife, and a Halloween-type mask. Police brought
the father and daughter to the Walmart parking lot, and they
both identified Nolan as the robber. Police then gathered
surveillance video from both the Holiday Inn Express and the
trial, the father and daughter testified that Nolan was the
culprit. The jury saw surveillance videos from both
locations, and it heard testimony from an officer regarding
what he saw on the Walmart video. After considering all the
evidence, the jury convicted Nolan as charged: one count of
armed robbery with a deadly weapon and one count of resisting
arrest without violence. The court imposed a ten-year
presents two issues on appeal. First, he argues that the
trial court erred in allowing a detective to testify about
the contents of the Walmart video. Second, he argues that the
trial court applied the wrong standard in denying his motion
for new trial. We find no merit in either argument, so we
from inside Walmart showed Nolan trying to make a purchase
using credit cards that were the same color as credit cards
stolen from the father. The video was introduced without
objection, and a detective testified that he identified Nolan
as the man in the video. Nolan argues this invaded the
province of the jury and should have been excluded. We review
only for an abuse of discretion. Salazar v. State,
991 So.2d 364, 373 (Fla. 2008).
of the jury's presence, the detective testified that he
spent time with Nolan the day of the arrest and that
Nolan's appearance had changed since then. Nolan's
hair and facial hair were different, his complexion had
changed, and he had put on weight. The trial court found that
there were, indeed, changes. Under these circumstances, there
was no abuse in discretion in allowing the detective to
testify that he had identified the man on the video as Nolan.
See Johnson v. State, 93 So.3d 1066, 1069 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2012) ("This detective had an extensive opportunity
to observe Johnson in person in Alabama shortly after the
crime was committed. After his arrest, Johnson changed his
appearance by gaining weight and bleaching his skin. Under
these circumstances, the detective's testimony was
properly admitted, because how Johnson looked at the time of
the crime was outside the realm of the jurors' knowledge
and experience and the detective's special familiarity
with Johnson was of assistance to the jury."); see
also Alvarez v. State, 147 So.3d 537, 542 (Fla. 4th DCA
2014) ("Even non-eyewitnesses may testify as to the
identification of persons depicted or heard on a recording so
long as it is clear the witness is in a better position than
the jurors to make those determinations."). Regardless,
if there were error in this regard, we are convinced beyond
reasonable doubt that it was harmless. See State v.
DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986).
remaining argument is that the trial court applied the wrong
standard in ruling on part of his motion for new trial. The
motion advanced multiple grounds for new trial, including
that the court erred in not granting a judgment of acquittal
and that "[t]he verdict is contrary to the weight of the
evidence." At the hearing on the motion, the judge noted
that the defense was making "the same arguments that
were made during the course of the trial" and that he
would "stand by my rulings and findings made at that
time" and deny the motion. Nolan argues that this shows
the trial court failed to apply the correct
weight-of-the-evidence standard, applicable to part of his
motion. When a trial court applies the wrong standard on a
new-trial motion, we have reversed for reconsideration.
See, e.g., Palmer v. State, 196 So.3d 1289, 1289
(Fla. 1st DCA 2016).
case, though, we have no basis to reverse. It is clear that
the court's statements in denying the motion were
directed at the arguments addressed at the hearing, and those
arguments did not include that the verdict was contrary to
the manifest weight of the evidence. Counsel argued that the
court had erred with some evidentiary rulings, and the court
said it would reject those arguments for the same reasons it
made its evidentiary rulings in the first place. So as in
Bell v. State, "there is nothing to indicate
the trial judge applied the wrong standard." 248 So.3d
208, 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) ("While the judges'
oral rulings only ...