Trevoris Finley v. State of Florida

D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL O F T HE STATE OF F LORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
TREVORIS FINLEY,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D2024-0591
[February 25, 2026]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward 	County; 	Martin 	Samuel 	Fein, 	Judge; 	L.T. 	Case 	No.
062018CF006512A88810.
David J. Joffe of Joffe Law P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
MAY , J.
The 	defendant 	and 	three 	co-defendants 	were 	charged 	below 	with
multiple robberies, murders, and conspiracy. The defendant now appeals
his convictions and sentences. 	He raises six points; namely, (1) three
evidentiary issues, and (2) the trial court’s denial of his motions for
mistrial, judgment of acquittal, and for a new trial. 	We find no merit in
the issues raised and affirm. 	We write to discuss the sufficiency of the
evidence on the murder counts.
The State charged the defendant in connection with six robberies over
two days. 	During two of those robberies, victims were killed. 	While each
defendant was charged with certain crimes, all four were charged with
conspiracy to commit the crimes.
The defendant first argues the evidence failed to support his convictions
for first and second-degree murder. 	He claims the convictions were
supported only by circumstantial evidence. 	He suggests the evidence did
not support that he was either there when the crimes were committed or
that he was the shooter. Specifically, he argues that one witness changed

2
his testimony from the statement given to law enforcement, and nothing
tied him “to the guns themselves.” Lastly, the defendant suggests the State
failed to prove the element of conscious purpose to kill.
The State responds that competent, substantial evidence supports both
murder convictions. 	The State argues that the two murders occurring on
the same day within proximity to each other, coupled with the defendant’s
identification at one of them, support his participation in the murders.
The State further responds that firearm evidence tied the defendant to the
firearm and the murders.
We 	have 	de 	novo review 	to 	determine whether 	sufficient evidence
supports the verdict. 	See Brown v. State, 85 So. 3d 1160, 1162–63 (Fla.
4th DCA 2012) (citing Valentin v. State, 974 So. 2d 629, 630 (Fla. 4th DCA
2008)).
Generally, “[i]t is incumbent upon the state to introduce competent
evidence of each element of the offense charged.” Cox v. State, 764 So. 2d
711, 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). 	Additionally, “[t]he test for the legal
sufficiency 	of 	the 	evidence 	is 	simply 	whether 	the 	State 	presented
competent, substantial evidence to support the verdict.” 	Alford v. State,
413 So. 3d 132, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (quoting Bush v. State, 295 So.
3d 179, 200 (Fla. 2020)) (citation modified). “If, after viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find
the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt,
sufficient evidence exists to sustain a conviction.” 	Alford, 413 So. 3d at
139 (quoting Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002)) (citation
modified).
Finally, 	a 	“defendant’s 	use 	of 	a 	firearm 	during 	a 	crime 	can 	be
established even if the gun is not recovered and introduced into evidence.
Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to establish the use of a firearm.”
Alford, 413 So. 3d at 139–140 (quoting Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555,
558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)) (citation modified).
Here, 	competent, 	substantial 	evidence 	supported 	the 	defendant’s
convictions 	for 	first 	and 	second-degree 	murder. 	First, 	eyewitness
testimony of two victims placed the defendant at two of the robbery scenes.
Another 	victim 	testified 	that 	a 	perpetrator 	dropped 	something 	as 	he
grabbed his firearm, and the defendant’s identification card was found at
the location. The rapid succession and similar nature of the robberies also
support the defendant’s participation in the other robberies, including
those where homicides occurred.

3
A shell casing at the scene of one murder was determined to have been
fired from a .40 caliber Glock pistol found in a handbag in a Jeep the police
alleged was used in some of the robberies. 	The handbag was tied to the
defendant, as his DNA was found on the magazine of the same gun. 	A
bullet retrieved from the body of one of the victims was determined to have
been fired by that gun.
The defendant’s DNA was also found on the steering wheel and keys to
the Jeep, along with a Pepsi can found in the center console. 	This Jeep
was used in the robbery of the final victim, who testified that one of the
perpetrators dropped something as he pulled out a firearm. 	Finally, the
defendant’s girlfriend was the mother of a co-defendant, who lived in an
apartment where the property of three victims was found.
As to the issue of intent, the State responds the issue is not preserved
as it was not raised in the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
Even if preserved, specific intent to kill is not a required element because
the State charged the defendant with felony murder. Finally, a .40 caliber
bullet was retrieved from one of the victim’s bodies, establishing evidence
of a robbery victim dying from fatal wounds sustained during the felony.
We agree with the State and affirm.
Affirmed.
CONNER and L OTT , JJ., concur.
* 	* 	*
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.