Summary
denying the prohibition petition because competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court's determination that the State presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome the petitioner's self-defense claim
Summary of this case from Westcott v. StateOpinion
No. 1D19-4587
04-23-2020
Shawn Thomas GAINEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Jeffrey P. Whitton, Panama City, for Petitioner. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daren L. Shippy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Jeffrey P. Whitton, Panama City, for Petitioner.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daren L. Shippy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner, Shawn Thomas Gainey, petitions this Court for a writ of prohibition following the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss the charge of aggravated battery with a firearm that the State filed against him after he admittedly shot the victim following an incident of road rage. Petitioner contends that he should be deemed immune from prosecution under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law because he acted in self-defense. See §§ 776.012, 776.032, Fla. Stat. (2018). After an immunity hearing during which conflicting evidence was put forth, the trial court determined that the State presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome Petitioner's self-defense claim. Because competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's determination, we deny the petition for writ of prohibition on the merits. See Craven v. State , 285 So. 3d 992, 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) ("Because the State met its burden by presenting clear and convincing evidence that a reasonable person in Petitioner's position would not have used the same force as Petitioner, the trial court's findings were supported by competent substantial evidence."); Ferrera-Discua v. State , 276 So. 3d 520, 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) ("Because ... the State presented clear and convincing evidence contradicting the claim [of self-defense], the trial court did not err in finding that Petitioner was not entitled to Stand-Your-Ground immunity."); Edwards v. State , 257 So. 3d 586, 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) ("The record in this case includes competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's determination that the State presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome Appellant's prima facie case [that his use of force was justified] for the charge in question."); Mederos v. State , 102 So. 3d 7, 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ("The record before us contains competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings that the facts here do not support the application of immunity under the Stand Your Ground Law.").
DENIED .
Lewis, Rowe, and Jay, JJ., concur.