Robert C. Buschel and Eugene G. Gibbons of Buschel Gibbons, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Amicus Curiae Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge # 31 LAWSON, J.This case is before the Court for review of State v. Peraza , 226 So.3d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). In Peraza , the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified that its decision directly conflicts with State v. Caamano , 105 So.3d 18 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2012), on the same question of law.

When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion seeking dismissal on grounds of self-defense immunity, this Court (1) considers whether competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's factual findings, and (2) reviews de novo whether the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner did not have an objectively reasonable belief that he faced an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. See Fletcher v. State, 273 So.3d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) ("A trial court's denial of pre-trial self-defense immunity involves a mixed standard of review."); Bouie v. State, 292 So.3d 471, 479-80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (explaining that a mixed standard is applied to the trial court's denial of a motion seeking dismissal on self-defense immunity grounds); State v. Marrero, 299 So.3d 489, 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (same); State v. Peraza, 226 So.3d 937, 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (same). The first question requires deference to the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations.