VENTURA
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's denial of a Stand-Your-Ground immunity motion after an evidentiary hearing is reviewable and was properly affirmed where the record supported the denial.
[1] A trial court's denial of a Stand-Your-Ground immunity motion following an evidentiary hearing constitutes a final order subject to appellate review.
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 intelligenceFrancisco Ventura appealed multiple orders from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, including a denial of his Stand-Your-Ground immunity motion e…
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 Disclosure Obligations cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 17, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D18-2411 Lower Tribunal Nos. 17-11762; 16-18158; 16-17619; 16-20175 & 16-20177 ________________ Francisco Ventura, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal from non-final orders from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez and Marisa Tinkler-Mendez, Judges. Francisco Ventura, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss on the basis of Stand-Your-Ground immunity, which was entered after an evidentiary hearing, is affirmed. The appeals of the orders denying the motion to dismiss for violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the motion to protect all of the accused’s constitutional rights, and the motion to identify subject matter jurisdiction are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Affirmed. 2