MILTON STACY MADDOX
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 5th DCA | 2019-12-27
No. 19-0352
Cohen, J., Evander, C.J., Wallis, J., Morley, J.
288 So. 3d 1223 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2019)
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Holding

A defendant is not entitled to a new Stand Your Ground hearing when the trial court applied an incorrect burden of proof but the evidence clearly establishes the defendant is not entitled to immunity under either standard.

Headnotes

[1] When a trial court applies an incorrect burden of proof in a Stand Your Ground immunity hearing but the evidence clearly establishes the defendant is not entitled to immu…

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 intelligence
Key Quotes

“the issue of who bears the burden of proof may well be significant where the case is an extremely close one, or where only limited evidence is presented for the trial court's consideration”

Court's discussion of why burden of proof matters in Stand Your Ground cases, citing Fuller v. State
Facts & Procedural History

In 2015, Milton Maddox was charged with three counts of aggravated assault with a firearm and one count of felony fleeing or attempting to elude. He f…

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.

Topics
Retroactivity Of Statutory Amendments Stand Your Ground Law Aggravated Assault With A Firearm Firearm

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retroactivity Of Statutory Amendments cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Affirmed. Evander

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

Case No. 5D19-352 MILTON STACY MADDOX, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed December 27, 2019 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumter County, Michelle T. Morley, Judge. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Matthew Funderburk, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

COHEN, J.

Milton Maddox was charged with three counts of aggravated assault with a firearm and one count of felony fleeing or attempting to elude. Maddox appeals the denial of his motion for immunity from prosecution of the aggravated assault charges pursuant to Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute, section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2017). In 2015, when Maddox committed the alleged crimes, a defendant had the burden to prove Stand Your Ground immunity by a preponderance of the evidence. Bretherick v.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., and WALLIS, J., concur.

Footnotes
2 State, 170 So. 3d 766, 779 (Fla. 2015). In 2017, section 776.032 was amended, providing that after a defendant raises a prima facie claim of self-defense, the burden shifts to the State to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not immune from prosecution. See Ch. 2017-72, § 1, Laws of Fla. Maddox filed his Stand Your Ground motion in 2017, pursuant to the amended version of section 776.032. At the hearing on his motion, Maddox argued that the change to the burden of proof was procedural in nature and therefore applied retroactively to his case. The trial court rejected that argument, ruling that Maddox was required to establish his entitlement to Stand Your Ground immunity by a preponderance of the evidence. Subsequently, in Fuller v. State, 257 So. 3d 521, 535ꟷ37 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), this Court ruled that the amendment to section 776.032 was procedural and should be applied retroactively. We noted in Fuller that “the issue of who bears the burden of proof may well be significant where the case is an extremely close one, or where only limited evidence is presented for the trial court’s consideration.” Id. at 539 (quoting Bretherick, 135 So. 3d at 341). Although the trial court’s determination as to the retroactivity of the amendment was contrary to Fuller, the trial court nonetheless found that the State “provided clear and convincing evidence that [Maddox] [was] not entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution.”1 Given that finding, as well as an independent review of the record, we are confident that Maddox had a full and complete evidentiary hearing on his claim of immunity, and that no useful purpose would be served in requiring a new Stand Your Ground hearing because his claim failed under either burden of proof. See Mency v. 1 A jury also rejected Maddox’s self-defense claim.
3 State, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1537 at *1 (Fla. 1st DCA June 12, 2019) (holding that defendant was not entitled to new Stand Your Ground hearing pursuant to correct burden of proof because trial court ruled that defendant was not entitled to immunity regardless of which party had burden).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw