FRANCISCO JOSE REVUELTA
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 conviction is affirmed because substantial competent evidence supports the guilty verdict on each element of the charged crime when viewed in the light most favorable to the State.
[1] When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal appeal, the appellate court conducts de novo review by viewing the evidence in the light most favora…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“view[ ] the evidence in the light most favorable to the State' and, maintaining this perspective, ask whether 'a rational trier of fact could have found the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'”
Standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal appeals
Francisco Jose Revuelta was convicted in Miami-Dade County Court. He appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the State's evidence.…
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 Reasonable Doubt cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed December 31, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-2203 Lower Tribunal No. B24-10867 ________________
Francisco Jose Revuelta, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Jennifer L. Hochstadt Azar, Judge.
Ronald I. Strauss, Esq., P.A., and Ronald I. Strauss, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General and Katryna Santa Cruz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before MILLER, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Acosta v. State, 399 So. 3d 1118, 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA
2 2024) (“When the defendant in a criminal appeal challenges the sufficiency of the State’s evidence, the appellate court conducts a de novo review of the trial record to ensure that the guilty verdict is supported by competent, substantial evidence regarding each element of the charged crime.” (quoting Garcia v. State, 373 So. 3d 1213, 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)); Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179, 200 (Fla. 2020) (“To apply this standard to a criminal case, an appellate court must ‘view[ ] the evidence in the light most favorable to the State’ and, maintaining this perspective, ask whether ‘a rational trier of fact could have found the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” (quoting Rogers v. State, 285 So. 3d 872, 891 (Fla. 2019))); Mobley v. State, 132 So. 3d 1160, 1164–65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“An objective standard is applied to determine whether the immunity provided by [the stand-your-ground] provisions attach.3 That standard requires the court to determine whether, based on circumstances as they appeared to the defendant when he or she acted, a reasonable and prudent person situated in the same circumstances and knowing what the defendant knew would have used the same force as did the defendant.” (citation omitted)); Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (Fla. 1981) (noting appellate court should “not retry a case or reweigh conflicting evidence submitted to a jury or other trier of fact” and must affirm if “all conflicts in the evidence and all reasonable
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)
- Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179 (Fla. 2020)
- Mobley v. State, 132 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)