Francisco Jose Revuelta v. State of Florida

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

3
inferences therefrom have been resolved in favor of the verdict on appeal”
and “there is substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict and
judgment”).