B.C., A CHILD
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 defendant is not entitled to Stand-Your-Ground immunity under § 776.012(1), Fla. Stat., when the evidence shows he exited his vehicle and followed and confronted an alleged victim who had slapped his car window in protest, ultimately striking the victim in the face.
[1] Under Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law, a defendant who initiates a confrontation by exiting his vehicle and following an alleged victim is not entitled to immunity from p…
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 intelligenceB.C. was pulling his car out of a parking spot at a gas station when the alleged victim, walking between vehicles to enter the store, slapped B.C.'s p…
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 September 9, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D26-1489 Lower Tribunal No. J26-63
B.C., a child, Petitioner,
VS.
State of Florida, Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for petitioner.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Ryan Schelwat, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and LOBREE, JJ.
LOGUE, J.
B.C. petitions for a writ of prohibition challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss, claiming immunity from prosecution under Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law, § 776.012(1), Fla. Stat., because he allegedly acted in self-defense. We deny the petition.
The trial court conducted a hearing on B.C.'s motion to dismiss. B.C. did not testify at the hearing. The only evidence presented at the hearing was (1) the testimony of the alleged victim, who testified he was not the aggressor and that he was attacked by B.C.; and (2) various videotapes from cameras at the location. The alleged victim's testimony and videotapes reflect that B.C. became involved in an altercation outside a gas station convenience store. B.C. was pulling his car out of its parking spot when the alleged victim was walking between B.C.'s vehicle and another parked vehicle to enter the store. The alleged victim slapped the passenger window or mirror of B.C.'s car in protest of the movement of B.C.'s car. B.C. then exited his car, followed and confronted the alleged victim, and ultimately hit him in the face and broke his nose.
Having carefully reviewed the transcript and the videos, we find no error in the trial court's decision to deny B.C.'s motion to dismiss and to send the case to trial. “[T]he trial court's factual findings are presumed correct and can be reversed only if they are not supported by competent substantial evidence." State v. Quevedo, 357 So. 3d 1249, 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).
Petition denied.