Title: James Patrick Wonder v. State of Florida
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC10-1741
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 26, 2011

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
_____________ 
 
No. SC10-1741 
_____________ 
 
JAMES PATRICK WONDER, 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Respondent. 
 
 
[May 26, 2011] 
 
 
CANADY, C.J. 
 
We have for review Wonder v. State, 52 So. 3d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), in 
which the Fourth District Court of Appeal denied Wonder’s petition for a writ of 
certiorari.  The Fourth District concluded that the trial court did not depart from the 
essential requirements of law in denying Wonder’s request for an evidentiary 
hearing on the issue of immunity from prosecution pursuant to section 776.032, 
Florida Statutes (2009), Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law.  The Fourth District 
certified conflict with Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), and 
also certified the conflict issue as a question of great public importance.  The 
 
- 2 - 
Fourth District granted Wonder’s motion to stay pending this Court’s review of 
Dennis v. State, 17 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).  We have jurisdiction.  See 
art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. 
 
We have since resolved the conflict, concluding that where a criminal 
defendant files a motion to dismiss on the basis of section 776.032, the trial court 
should decide the factual question of the applicability of the statutory immunity.  
See Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2010).  In so holding, we approved the 
reasoning of Peterson on the conflict issue.   
 
Following that decision, we issued an order directing the State to show cause 
why this Court should not exercise jurisdiction in the instant case, summarily 
quash the decision on review, and remand for reconsideration in light of Dennis.  
The State has filed a response conceding that “given the procedural posture of this 
case . . . this cause should be remanded for reconsideration.”   
 
We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case.  The 
decision under review is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the Fourth 
District for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Dennis.  
 
It is so ordered. 
PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
 
- 3 - 
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Certified 
Direct Conflict of Decisions 
 
 
Fourth District - Case No. 4D10-2547 
 
 
(Broward County) 
 
Michael J. Entin and Frank A. Maister, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Melanie Dale 
Surber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent