STATE
v.
KIRKLAND
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.
Rose Graff petitioned for a writ of prohibition challenging the trial court's denial of her motion to dismiss based on Florida's Stand Your Ground law following a physical altercation with her daughter. The appellate court denied the petition, finding that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that Graff did not act in lawful self-defense.
The trial court properly denied Graff's motion to dismiss because the State carried its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Graff did not act in self-defense, as required by § 776.032(4), Fla. Stat.
[1] A trial court's findings of fact in a Stand Your Ground immunity hearing are presumed correct and can be reversed only if not supported by competent substantial evidence.
[2] A trial court's legal conclusions in a Stand Your Ground immunity hearing are reviewed de novo.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the trial court's findings of fact are 'presumed correct and can be reversed only if they are not supported by competent substantial evidence, while the trial court's legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.'”
Establishes the standard of review for evaluating the trial court's decision on the Stand Your Ground motion to dismiss
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRose Graff engaged in a physical altercation with her daughter, during which she briefly choked her daughter. Graff claimed she was entitled to immuni…
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
PER CURIAM.
Rose Graff petitions this Court for a writ of prohibition challenging the trial court’s order denying her motion to dismiss, which was based on the Stand Your Ground law. § 776.032, Fla. Stat. We deny the petition.
The facts of the underlying case involve a physical altercation between a mother—Graff— and her daughter—the victim. Graff asserted that she was entitled to immunity from prosecution under the Stand Your Ground law. The trial court held a hearing, at the conclusion of which it evaluated the testimony and concluded that the State had carried its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Graff had not acted in self-defense and denied her motion to dismiss. 2 of 3 See § 776.032(4), Fla. Stat. This petition challenging that decision followed. In this proceeding, our standard of review is that “the trial court's findings of fact are ‘presumed correct and can be reversed only if they are not supported by competent substantial evidence, while the trial court's legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.’” State v. Kirkland, 276 So. 3d 994, 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (quoting Mobley v. State, 132 So. 3d 1160, 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)). Here, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusions. Our review of the record demonstrates that the State indeed proved that nothing substantiated Graff’s self-defense claim. At the hearing, both the victim and an independent witness testified that the victim did not precipitate Graff’s action in briefly choking her daughter. Indeed, Graff herself could only muster that the victim was yelling at her and that she “accidentally grabbed her by the neck.” Ex. C at 49. Accordingly, we agree that the State carried its burden of proof and the motion to dismiss was properly denied. Therefore, the petition for a writ of certiorari is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, on this ______ day of ______________, 2019.
LETICIA MARQUES
Presiding Circuit Judge
KEST and JORDAN, JJ., concur. 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Order has been furnished to: Felipe Franca, Assistant Public Defender, 435 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 400, Orlando, Florida 32801; Matthew Kozyra, Assistant State Attorney, 415 N. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801; Honorable Maureen Bell, 425 N. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801 on this ______ day of ______________, 2019.
/S/
Judicial Assistant