Estrada v. State (400 So. 2d 562, 1981)

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction and sentence for aggravated assault [entered upon a jury verdict of guilt as a lesser offense on an information charging robbery with a firearm] which is under review by this appeal is affirmed upon a holding that:

(1) the sole point raised on appeal [i. e., the state’s evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant intended to participate in the subject aggravated assault as an aider and abetter] was not properly preserved for appellate review because: (1) no motion for judgment of acquittal was made below [at best only an argument in support of such a motion at the close of the state’s case], and no motion for new trial was made below; State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974); Mancini v. State, 273 So.2d 371 (Fla.1973); Sundell v. State, 354 So.2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); and (b) the argument on sufficiency made below at the close of the state’s case — even if treated as a motion for judgment of acquittal — consisted solely of an attack on the identification of the defendant and was in no way related to the criminal intent — aiding and abetting ground now asserted for the first time on appeal, Daley v. State, 374 So.2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); G.W.B. v. State, 340 So.2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 948 (Fla.1977);

(2) the state’s circumstantial evidence relevant to the defendant’s intent to participate in the subject aggravated assault as an aider and abetter was, in any event, sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal as it established that the defendant: (a) was the driver of the get-away car in a gas station holdup; (b) drove the said car into the gas station prior to the holdup and hid the car behind a wall on the gas station property so that the car could not be seen from the street or from inside the building on the gas station property; (c) waited while his two companions in the car got out and committed a robbery with a firearm upon the attendant at the gas station; and, (d) hastily fled the scene in the car with his two companions after the robbery was committed, and was caught shortly thereafter with the fruits and in-strumentalities of the robbery plainly visible to all in the car, see e. g., Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44 (Fla.1974); Amato v. State, 296 So.2d 609, 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).

Affirmed.