SEXTON
v.
STATE
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion by applying the Stand Your Ground law in effect at the time of the conduct rather than a retroactively amended version, where bound by controlling appellate precedent.
[1] A statutory amendment imposing a higher burden of proof on the state to overcome a claim of self-defense immunity does not apply retroactively to conduct that occurred pr…
[2] A trial court is bound by the precedent of an appellate court within its jurisdiction when considering 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 intelligenceBrendan Sexton sought immunity from prosecution for attempted first-degree murder for a shooting occurring on June 23, 2015, based on Florida's Stand …
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 Retroactivity Of Statutory Amendments cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 29, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D18-1500 Lower Tribunal No. 15-12893
________________
Brendan Sexton,
Petitioner,
vs.
The State of Florida, et al.,
Respondents.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction—Prohibition.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, Assistant Public Defender, for petitioner.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General; Patricia Gladson, General Counsel, and Gabriela Jimenez Salomon, Assistant General Counsel, for respondents.
Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.
SCALES, J.
Petitioner, Brendan Sexton, seeks a writ of prohibition directing the trial court to relieve him from criminal prosecution for attempted first degree murder for a shooting that occurred on June 23, 2015, on grounds that he is immune from prosecution under Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law, section 776.032 of the
Florida Statutes (2017). For the following reasons, we deny the petition.
Before Sexton filed his motion below arguing that he is immune from criminal prosecution, the Florida Legislature amended section 776.032, effective
June 9, 2017, by adding subsection (4), which states:
In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).
§ 776.032(4), Fla. Stat. (2017); Ch. 2017-72, § 1, Laws of Fla. In the subject order denying Sexton’s immunity motion, following this Court’s recent decision in
Love v. State, 247 So. 3d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), the trial court rejected Sexton’s assertion that subsection (4) applied retroactively to conduct occurring prior to the amendment’s June 9, 2017 effective date. Applying the version of section 776.032 in effect when the shooting occurred (on June 23, 2015), the trial court found that
Sexton had failed to meet his burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution.
In the instant petition, Sexton does not challenge the merits of the trial court’s ruling; rather, Sexton argues only that the new standard, subsection (4),
applies retroactively and that the trial court should be directed to apply the new standard in this case.
As Sexton rightly acknowledges, the circuit court was bound by this Court’s decision in Love when considering Sexton’s immunity motion, notwithstanding our sister court’s determination, in Martin v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1016 (Fla.
2d DCA May 4, 2018), that subsection (4) is retroactive. See State v. Washington,
114 So. 3d 182, 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). We therefore deny the instant petition,
and also deny Sexton’s request to hold this petition in abeyance pending the
Florida Supreme Court’s disposition of Love v. State, SC18-747.1
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Love v. State, 247 So. 3d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Gabryl Mark Sullivan v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
- State v. Washington, 114 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Catalano v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)