EDDIE ALDARDO MAYO, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Eddie Aldardo Mayo, Jr. appeals his manslaughter conviction, arguing he was denied immunity under Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law because he was allegedly engaged in unlawful trespass when he acted in self-defense. The appellate court reversed, holding that under the statute as it existed at the time of Mayo's motion to dismiss, a defendant could assert Stand Your Ground immunity even while committing an unlawful act.
The trial court erred in denying Mayo's motion to dismiss for Stand Your Ground immunity. Under section 776.012(1), Florida Statutes, as it existed at the time Mayo filed his motion to dismiss, a defendant could assert immunity from prosecution under section 776.032 even if engaged in unlawful activity, and Mayo's evidence of self-defense was competent and substantial.
[1] Under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law prior to its 2014 amendment, a defendant could assert immunity from prosecution even if engaged in an unlawful act at the time of…
[2] A substantive change in law enacted after the filing of a motion to dismiss does not affect the analysis of that 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“a defendant could assert immunity from prosecution under section 776.0122 even if he was engaged in an unlawful act at the time that he acted in self-defense”
Establishes the core holding that unlawful activity does not bar Stand Your Ground immunity under the pre-2014 statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMayo was charged with manslaughter. The trial court denied his pretrial motion to dismiss based on Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law, concluding he wa…
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
Eddie Aldardo Mayo, Jr. appeals his judgment and sentence for manslaughter.1 He argues that the trial court erred in denying his dispositive pretrial motion to dismiss based on Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. See §§ 776.082 and 776.012(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). Specifically, Mayo contends that the trial court erred by improperly concluding that he was not entitled to immunity from prosecution because he was engaged in an unlawful activity, namely, trespass, at the time that he acted in self-defense. In a similar case, we held that under the “Stand Your Ground” law prior to its amendment in 2014, a defendant could assert immunity from prosecution under section 776.0122 even if he was engaged in an unlawful act at the time that he acted in self-defense. See Miles v. State, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D372a (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 6, 2015) (reversing and. remanding for discharge on counts of second-degree murder (reduced to manslaughter) and attempted second-degree murder (reduced to aggravated battery) based on “Stand your Ground” immunity under sections 776.032 and 776.012, Florida Statutes). We are bound by our prior decision in Miles. Because the present-existing exception for a defendant’s engagement in unlawful activity did not exist under section 776.012(1), Florida Statutes, at the time that Mayo filed his motion to dismiss, and because there was competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Mayo acted in self-defense, we agree with Mayo that the trial court erred in concluding that he was not entitled to immunity from prosecution under section 776.032(1), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and sentence under review and remand with directions that the trial court discharge Mayo on the charge of manslaughter.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with instructions.
PALMER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Smiley v. State, 966 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2007)
- Edmond Wyche v. State, 178 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)