Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 12, 2025.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22-1891 Lower Tribunal No. F18-9446 ________________

Nathaniel Jerome Barnett, Jr., Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ramiro C.

Areces, Judge.

Piotrowski Law, and Jaime Lapidus, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Pearce v. State, 880 So. 2d 561, 569 (Fla. 2004) (“To be inconsistent, a prior statement must either directly contradict or be materially different from the expected testimony at trial. The inconsistency must involve a material, significant fact rather than mere details.”); Johnson v. State, 256 So. 3d 208, 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (affirming denial of new trial where defense counsel was suspended from practice of law during trial due to CLE delinquency but reinstated within 60-day grace period, as counsel “was never technically suspended from the practice of law because his reinstatement was retroactive”); Porter v. State, 384 So. 3d 839, 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) (affirming denial of motion for judgment of acquittal on second-degree murder charge as to defendant who admitted “animosity” and “rivalry” with victim that could support jury finding of depraved mind element).