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

JOSEPH GUIDA, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Case No. 5D22-2694

LT Case No. 2021-MM-520-A 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Respondent. 

________________________________/

Opinion filed February 15, 2023

Petition for Writ of Prohibition,

James J. Dekleva, Respondent Judge.

William R. Ponall and Eric J. Sorice, 

of Ponall Law, Maitland, for Petitioner. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM. 
2

Joseph Guida petitions this Court for a Writ of Prohibition, challenging 

the trial court’s unelaborated written order denying his motion for immunity 

pursuant to the Stand Your Ground law of section 776.032(4), Florida 

Statutes (2019), after an evidentiary hearing. For the following reasons, we 

grant the petition. 

Petitioner was charged with two counts of Domestic Violence Battery. 

Count One charged him with domestic battery of his son, while Count Two 

charged him with domestic battery of his wife. The charges in Count One of 

the information stem from a dispute between Petitioner and his son regarding 

Petitioner playing loud music on his computer in the middle of the night in his 

office located in the family home. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss 

pursuant to the Stand Your Ground law. Petitioner’s motion sets forth why 

he should be immune from prosecution under section 776.032(4) as to Count 

One, but provides no reasons as to why he would have immunity from 

prosecution as to Count Two. 

Section 776.032(4) was amended in 2017 to clarify that the burden of 

proof is on the State when dealing with Stand Your Ground immunity motions 

and that the State’s burden is to prove by clear and convincing evidence that 

the statutory immunity does not apply. Love v. State, 286 So. 3d 177, 180 

(Fla. 2019). "Clear and convincing evidence" has been defined as: "an 
3

intermediate level of proof [that] entails both a qualitative and quantitative 

standard. The evidence must be credible; the memories of witnesses must 

be clear and without confusion; and the sum total of the evidence must be of 

sufficient weight to convince the trier of fact without hesitancy." Edwards v. 

State, 257 So. 3d 586, 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). 

In orally denying the motion at the conclusion of the hearing, the trial 

court’s statements, which we find unnecessary to relate, indicate that the 

court did not resolve the highly uncertain and conflicting accounts of the 

altercation. See Bouie v. State, 292 So. 3d 471, 481–82 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)

(“Furthermore, the trial court did not resolve the differing accounts of how the 

altercation transpired and the evidence adduced at the stand-your-ground 

hearing was highly uncertain and conflicting, leaving the State unable to 

meet its burden.”). Nor did its oral pronouncement suggest, by any means,

that it was convinced by the sum total of the evidence “without hesitancy”

that the State had established that petitioner was not entitled to immunity. 

Edwards, 257 So. 3d at 588. 

Accordingly, we grant the petition, quash the order denying Petitioner’s 

motion to dismiss Count One of the information, remand with instructions for 

the trial court to enter an order finding Petitioner immune from prosecution 
4

of the charges set forth in Count One, and for further proceedings consistent 

with this opinion.1

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED; and REMANDED, with 

instructions. 

LAMBERT, C.J., EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

1 As we are confident that the trial court will enter its order dismissing 

Count One and declaring Petitioner immune from prosecution as to that 

charge, there is no present need for the writ to actually be issued and served.