I.J., A JUVENILE
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.
A trial court's factual findings on a Stand Your Ground immunity motion are presumed correct and can be reversed only if unsupported by competent substantial evidence.
[1] On review of a trial court's order denying a Stand Your Ground immunity motion, the trial court's factual findings are presumed correct and may be reversed only if they a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile was charged with a crime and moved to dismiss based on Stand Your Ground immunity. The trial court denied the motion.…
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 Self-Defense Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed November 5, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0711 Lower Tribunal No. J23-1532 ________________
I.J., a Juvenile, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Dawn Denaro, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender and Andrew Stanton, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General and Daniel Colmenares, Assistant Attorney General , for appellee.
Before EMAS, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See State v. Quevedo, 357 So. 3d 1249, 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (noting that on review of trial court’s order on motion to dismiss due to Stand Your Ground immunity, “the trial court’s factual findings are presumed correct and can be reversed only if they are not supported by competent substantial evidence”); Smith v. State, 969 So. 2d 452, 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (affirming jury finding that bottle of bleach can be used as deadly weapon); see also Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002) (explaining tipsy coachman doctrine); § 776.041(2), Fla. Stat. (limiting use of self-defense by defendant who “[i]nitially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Swett v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002)
- Smith v. State, 969 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- State v. Emilio Quevedo, 357 So. 3d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)