DARRELL WILSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial court's denial of Stand Your Ground immunity is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and a reviewing court must yield to the trial court's findings when competent, substantial evidence supports them, even when the evidence is conflicting.
[1] When a trial court hears evidence on a Stand Your Ground immunity claim and makes credibility determinations, a reviewing court must yield to the trial court's factual fi…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[S]o long as there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings, the reviewing court must yield.”
Standard of review for Stand Your Ground immunity rulings citing Spires v. State
Darrell Wilson shot an adult and child but claimed immunity under Florida's Stand Your Ground law based on self-defense. The trial court held an immun…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Stand Your Ground Law cases and more on FLexlaw
RAY, C.J.
Darrell Wilson petitions this Court for a writ of prohibition following the denial of his motion to dismiss the attempted murder charges against him. Wilson does not dispute that he shot the adult and child victims, but he contends he is immune from prosecution under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law because he acted in self-defense. See § 776.012(2), Fla. Stat. (2017).
After an immunity hearing where the trial court made credibility calls and weighed conflicting evidence, the court determined that the State presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome the self-defense claim. Because there is competent, substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings, we deny the petition for writ of prohibition on the merits. See Mederos v. State, 102 So. 3d 7, 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (affirming denial of Stand Your Ground immunity where the testimony below “contradict[ed] wildly” and there was competent, substantial evidence that the defendant was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed the victim); Spires v. State, 180 So. 3d 1175, 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“[S]o long as there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings, the reviewing court must yield.”).
DENIED. ROWE and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mederos v. State, 102 So. 3d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Spires v. State, 180 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)