SHAWN THOMAS GAINEY
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.
The appellate court denied a petition for a writ of prohibition, upholding the trial court's decision to deny the defendant's motion to dismiss charges. The defendant claimed immunity under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, but the court found sufficient evidence that the State had overcome his self-defense claim.
The appellate court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss. Competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court's determination that the State successfully overcame the petitioner's claim of self-defense and thus defeated his claim for "Stand Your Ground" immunity.
[1] In a Stand Your Ground immunity proceeding, the State must present clear and convincing evidence to overcome a defendant's prima facie self-defense claim, and a trial cou…
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“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.”
This quote explains the standard of review and the basis for upholding the trial court's decision regarding the "Stand Your Ground" immunity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner, Shawn Thomas Gainey, shot a victim during a road rage incident and subsequently sought dismissal of aggravated battery charges based o…
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 Self-Defense Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
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. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gainey v. State, 276 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…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 b…1 / 2
-
Coleman v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…leman’s testimony implausible. We will not second-guess that determination. We find that competent and substantial evidence supported the trial court’s denial of immunity under the clear and convincing evidence standard. See Ferrera-Discua v. State, 276 So. 3d 520, 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019); Edwards v. State, 257 So. 3d 586, 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). Mr. Coleman still may assert self-defense at trial. See Ferrera-Discua, 276 So. 3d at 520. The Petition is DENIED on the merits. OSTERHAUS and JAY, JJ., concur.…
-
Westcott v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…t DCA 2020) (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); 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…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mederos v. State, 102 So. 3d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Blair Alexandria Edwards v. State, 257 So. 3d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
- Gainey v. State, 276 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)