Appellant challenges his convictions and sentences for first degree murder and second degree attempted murder claiming error in admitting certain statements. The testimony that one of the victims identified Appellant as the shooter was properly admitted as a statement of identification and was not hearsay. See § 90.801(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2022). The statement that Appellant intended to go to a cell phone store was not offered for truth of the matter asserted, and so it was also not hearsay. See § 90.801(1)(b), Fla. Stat. The statement made by one of the victims while Appellant loaded his firearm was properly admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. Finally, there was no error in assessing the costs, and Appellant waived his right to object to the restitution ordered.
Affirmed.
Per Curiam.
Osterhaus, C.J., and Rowe and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.