is inconsistent with the [d]efendant’s theory of events.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla.1989)). The State is not required to rebut a hypothesis of innocence that is unreasonable. See Henderson v. State, 679 So.2d 805, 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“While we must agree with [appellant] that the State was required to provide evidence inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, we emphasize that the State was not required to exclude any unreasonable hypothesis.”). In this case, there was direct evidence that Westbrooks was told of a robbery before it was committed, thus suggesting his participation in the robberies, but there was no direct evidence that Westbrooks participated in the robberies. See Singleton v. State, 105 So.3d 542, 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (<HOLDING>); see also Charles W. Ehrhardt, Ehrhardt’s
holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary holding that direct evidence of defendants dna found at the scene was direct evidence merely of a circumstance that suggested his participation in the burglary and theft but was not direct evidence of his participation in the burglary holding that defendant was still in the commission of a burglary despite its technical completion when she caused the death of three persons during a police chase that began at the scene of the burglary holding that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to show that a method step was carried out by the direct infringer even in the absence of direct evidence for direct infringer holding that iowa burglary is not categorical burglary as the elements of iowa burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary