all facts adduced and every reasonable inference drawn from those facts. Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44, 45 (Fla.1974). Furthermore, appellate courts are not at liberty to evaluate the weight of the evidence, but only its legal sufficiency. Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1981). Rather, our task is to determine whether, after reviewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find that a rational factfinder could find that each element of the offense exists beyond a reasonable doubt. Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So.2d 495, 507 (Fla. 2005); Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065 (Fla.1999). We find that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the State is sufficient to uphold Appellant’s adjudication. See C.C., Jr. v. State, 943 So.2d 905 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>). The arresting officer’s testimony that
holding that trial court erred when it admitted outofcourt identification of defendant when the witness who made the identification was never asked about defendants identity at trial holding when the defendant timely objected to an incourt identification by an eyewitness the trial judge should have directed the government to provide an outofcourt lineup or other protective procedure to avoid an impermissibly suggestive incourt identification holding that a victims outofcourt identification was sufficient to support adjudication holding that testimony regarding outofcourt identification was inadmissible where the state failed to ask the witnesses about the identification during its direct examination holding that witness had an independent basis to support incourt identification where the description made prior to any pretrial identification was substantially an accurate description of the defendant