JAMES PATRICK WONDER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
James Patrick Wonder sought certiorari review of the trial court's denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing on a Stand Your Ground immunity claim under Florida law. The Fourth District Court of Appeal initially denied the petition but, following the Florida Supreme Court's remand in light of Dennis v. State, reversed course and granted the petition, holding that the trial court must hold a pretrial evidentiary hearing to determine whether statutory immunity applies.
The trial court must hold a pretrial evidentiary hearing to decide the factual question of whether section 776.032 statutory immunity applies. The defendant bears the burden of establishing the factual prerequisites of the immunity claim by a preponderance of the evidence, and the trial court must weigh these factual matters pretrial and determine whether immunity exists before trial.
[1] A trial court must decide the factual question of the applicability of statutory immunity from prosecution pretrial when a criminal defendant files a motion to dismiss on…
[2] A defendant seeking statutory immunity from prosecution bears the burden of establishing the factual prerequisites of the immunity claim by a preponderance of the evidenc…
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“where a criminal defendant files a motion to dismiss on the basis of section 776.032, the trial court should decide the factual question of the applicability of the statutory immunity.”
Florida Supreme Court's holding in Dennis establishing that courts must conduct pretrial evidentiary hearings on Stand Your Ground immunity claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Patrick Wonder was a defendant in a criminal prosecution in Broward County Circuit Court. He filed a motion requesting an evidentiary hearing on…
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
ON RECONSIDERATION ON MANDATE FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
James Patrick Wonder, the defendant in a criminal prosecution pending in the Bro-ward County Circuit Court, sought certio-rari review of an order denying his request for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of immunity from prosecution pursuant to section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2009) (the “Stand Your Ground” law, enacted by chapter 2005-27, section 5, at 202, Laws of Florida).
We denied the petition, holding that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law by following Velasquez v. State, 9 So.3d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), in which we had certified conflict with Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), and other cases following Peterson. See Wonder v. State, 52 So.3d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), quashed, 64 So.3d 1208 (Fla.2011).
In Wonder v. State, 64 So.3d at 1209, the Florida Supreme Court quashed our opinion and remanded for reconsideration in light of its decision in Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456 (Fla.2010). In Dennis, the supreme court disapproved our reasoning in Dennis,1 approved the reasoning of Peterson, and concluded that “where a criminal defendant files a motion to dismiss on the basis of section 776.032, the trial court should decide the factual question of the applicability of the statutory immunity.” *372 Id. at 457. The court stated that the procedure set forth in Peterson effectuates legislative intent. Id. at 463. In Peterson, the First District concluded that, if a defendant raises the issue of statutory immunity pretrial, the defendant has the burden of establishing the factual prerequisites of the immunity claim by a preponderance of the evidence, and the trial court must weigh the factual matters pretrial and determine pretrial whether immunity exists. 983 So.2d at 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (citing People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo.1987)).
Accordingly, we now grant the petition, quash the order denying Defendant’s request for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of immunity from prosecution, and remand for further proceedings pursuant to Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456 (Fla.2010).
Petition Granted.
TAYLOR, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deodat Satyanand v. State, 147 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…s. Dennis, 51 So. 3d at 462, 464; see also Prof 'l Roofing & Sales, Inc. v. Flemmings, 138 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (explaining that a pretrial hearing is the appropriate forum for addressing Stand Your Ground immunity claims); Wonder v. State, 69 So. 3d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (holding that, based on the decision in Dennis, the defendant was entitled to receive a pretrial evidentiary hearing on the immunity issue); Legene v. State, 60 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (holding that defendant was entitled…
Authorities Cited
- Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2010)
- Zack Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Velasquez v. State, 9 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Furney v. State, 17 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Wonder v. State, 64 So. 3d 1208 (Fla. 2011)
- Wonder v. State, 52 So. 3d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)