LONNIE RIGGENS
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.
Lonnie Riggens sought certiorari review of a trial court order denying his motion to dismiss a simple battery charge based on Florida's Stand Your Ground law. The appellate court granted the petition and quashed the order, holding that a motion to dismiss claiming self-defense under Florida's Stand Your Ground statute need not be sworn to establish a prima facie claim.
A motion to dismiss claiming immunity under Florida's Stand Your Ground law need not be sworn to establish a prima facie claim of justifiable use of force. If the alleged facts satisfy the requirements of the applicable self-defense statute, the burden shifts to the State to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome the self-defense claim.
[1] A motion to dismiss alleging self-defense under Florida's Stand Your Ground law need not be sworn.
[2] To raise a claim of immunity under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, an accused must allege a facially sufficient prima facie claim of justifiable use of force in a motion…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“to raise a claim of immunity under section 776.032, 'an accused must simply allege a facially sufficient prima facie claim of justifiable use of force under chapter 776 in a motion to dismiss filed under [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 3.190(b) and present argument in support of that motion at a pretrial immunity hearing.'”
Establishes the standard for raising a Stand Your Ground claim—no sworn requirement needed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRiggens was charged with simple battery. He filed a motion to dismiss alleging self-defense under Florida's Stand Your Ground law (section 776.032). T…
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 Justifiable Use Of Force cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge. Lonnie Riggens seeks certiorari review of the trial court's order denying his motion to dismiss based on Florida's Stand Your Ground law, section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2020). We grant the petition and quash the order.
The State charged Riggens with simple battery. Riggens filed a motion to dismiss alleging self-defense under Florida's Stand Your Ground law. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion because it was unsworn.
As we explained in Jefferson v. State, 264 So. 3d 1019, 1028-29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), to raise a claim of immunity under section 776.032, "an accused must simply allege a facially sufficient prima facie claim of justifiable use of force under chapter 776 in a motion to dismiss filed under [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 3.190(b) and present argument in support of that motion at a pretrial immunity hearing." The trial court is to assume all facts as true, and if the alleged facts satisfy the requirements of the applicable self-defense statute raised by the accused, the burden shifts to the State to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome the self-defense claim. Id. at 1029; see also Casanova v. State, 335 So. 3d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (holding that a defendant's motion to dismiss under Florida's Stand Your Ground law can establish a prima facie claim of self-defense even though the motion to dismiss is not sworn to by someone with personal knowledge or supported by evidence or testimony establishing the facts in the motion to dismiss).
Because there is no requirement that the motion be sworn, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the order denying Riggens' motion to dismiss.
Petition granted; order quashed.
SILBERMAN and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.