CASEY VASSAR
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal because competent substantial evidence supported the conviction; however, the sentencing order contained multiple errors requiring correction on remand.
[1] A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find all elements of…
[2] A trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo and will not be reversed if the conviction is supported by competent substantial evidence…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, sufficient evidence exists to sustain a conviction.”
This establishes the standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal from a motion for judgment of acquittal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVassar was charged with three counts of attempting to lure or entice a child under twelve into his truck for an unlawful purpose. The jury found him g…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 15, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0845 Lower Tribunal No. 21-MM-819-A-K ________________
Casey Vassar, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Monroe County, Albert L. Kelley, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Nicholas A. Lynch, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Camilo Montoya, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.
GORDO, J.
Casey Vassar (“Vassar”) appeals from a final judgment of conviction and sentence on three counts of attempting to lure or entice a child under the age of twelve into a conveyance for other than a lawful purpose.1 We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(1)(A). We affirm the judgment but remand for the correction of certain sentencing errors. Vassar argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State presented insufficient evidence that he attempted to lure or entice any children into his truck. On de novo review,2 we find the State put forward sufficient evidence to sustain Vassar’s conviction. Whether Vassar’s conduct constituted an attempt to lure or entice a child was a question presented to the jury. The jury found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Because Vassar’s conviction is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record, we conclude the trial court
3 properly denied his motion for judgment of acquittal. See Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803-04 (Fla. 2002) (“In reviewing a motion for judgment of acquittal . . . . an appellate court will not reverse a conviction which is supported by competent, substantial evidence. If, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, sufficient evidence exists to sustain a conviction. . . . The trial court did not err in denying [Appellant’s] motion for judgment of acquittal.”). Vassar also challenges the sentencing order, arguing the trial court improperly (1) prohibited early termination as a special condition of probation, (2) assessed a $40 investigation cost to the Key West Police Department without a request from the department, (3) imposed a $450 public defender application fee instead of the $50 orally pronounced, (4) assessed $439 in court costs without citing statutory authority, and (5) ordered each cost and fine three times despite orally pronouncing that they be imposed only once. The State concedes these errors. Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment of conviction but remand for further proceedings with directions for the trial court to enter a corrected sentencing order. See Murphy v. State, 976 So. 2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“The trial court erroneously imposed a no early termination of probation condition. . . . The
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002)
- Garrido v. State, 97 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Giralt v. State, 935 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Murphy v. State, 976 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Babbs v. State, 187 So. 3d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Scott v. State, 109 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Hamilton v. State, 295 So. 3d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)