REVUELTA v. STATE (2025)

Affirmed. See Acosta v. State, 399 So. 3d 1118, 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 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 inferences therefrom have been resolved in favor of the verdict on appeal” and “there is substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment”).

PER CURIAM.