CARRI JO KASEY
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.
A trial court's finding of a willful and substantial probation violation must be affirmed on appeal if the record contains any supporting evidence, even if the evidence is close or could have supported an alternative finding.
[1] A trial court's finding of a willful and substantial violation of probation is reviewed for abuse of discretion and must be affirmed on appeal if the record contains any…
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“As an appellate court, we are constrained to affirm a trial court's finding of a willful and substantial violation of probation unless the record lacks supporting evidence.”
The court explaining the deferential standard of review applicable to probation violation findings.
Kasey was on probation for drug possession and driving with a suspended license. During an investigation into her boyfriend's suspected child abuse, p…
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 Drug Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
CARRI JO KASEY, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Case Nos. 5D2024-0902 5D2024-0903 LT Case Nos. 2023-301256-CFDB 2023-302217-CFDB
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County. Karen A. Foxman, Judge.
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Victoria Rose Cordero, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Whitney Brown Hartless, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
December 5, 2025
EISNAUGLE and KILBANE, JJ., concur. MAKAR, J., concurs specially with opinion.
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Case Nos. 5D2024-0902 5D2024-0903 LT Case Nos. 2023-301256-CFDB 2023-302217-CFDB
MAKAR, J., concurring specially.
At issue in this violation of probation case is whether the trial judge erred in assessing the evidence of possible child pornography on Carri Jo Kasey's cellphone. Kasey's boyfriend was a suspect of child abuse and the investigation pulled her into the matter, resulting in the search of her cellphone, which had two photographs of two of her young sons with their privates showing. Kasey was on probation for multiple charges of drug possession and driving while license was suspended. Based upon the evidence presented at the violation of probation hearing, including expert testimony of the forensic analysis of the cellphone, the trial judge concluded that Kasey had violated the condition of probation that she must not engage in any new law violations (i.e., possessing child pornography, in this case) and sentenced her to five years imprisonment on the drug and driving charges. On appeal, Kasey highlights evidence that supports the view that she did not willfully and substantially violate her probation by possessing the photos of her sons. The State counters that the record evidence supports the trial court's findings of a willful and substantial violation. As an appellate court, we are constrained to affirm a trial court's finding of a willful and substantial violation of probation unless the record lacks supporting evidence. On that basis, affirmance is warranted. That said, the record evidence as a whole could have supported a determination by the trial court that Kasey did not commit a willful and substantial violation—a determination that would warrant an affirmance, as well, because of the appellate standard of review. The closeness of the evidentiary question makes this a difficult case. Based on the appellate standard of review, I join my colleagues in affirmance.
3