Court Opinion

ID: 9903522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:51:33.805911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:22.315495
License: Public Domain

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,
                                             Case No. 5D22-2694
v.                                           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.
      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

                                      2
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

                                       3
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.

                                      4