Carri Jo Kasey v. State of Florida

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case Nos. 5D2024-0902
5D2024-0903
LT Case Nos. 2023-301256-CFDB
2023-302217-CFDB
_____________________________
CARRI JO KASEY,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
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.
December 5, 2025
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.

2
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.
_____________________________

3
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.