Boston v. State, No. 1D17-5190

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Rowe, J.
• Citation: 296 So.3d 580
• Parties: Roy P. BOSTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Decision Date: 29 May 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1D17-5190

296 So.3d 580

Roy P. BOSTON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5190

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 29, 2020

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kasey Lacey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General; Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General; Amit Agarwal, Solicitor General; Edward M. Wenger, Chief Deputy Solicitor General; and Christopher J. Baum, Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

Rowe, J.

The Florida Supreme Court quashed our decision in Boston v. State , 260 So. 3d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), and remanded for reconsideration upon application of its decision in Love v. State , 286 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 2019). See State v. Boston , 45 Fla. L. Weekly S134, 2020 WL 970644 (Fla. Feb. 28, 2020).

In Love , the supreme court ruled that the 2017 amendment to section 776.032(4), Florida Statutes, was procedural and applied to Stand-Your-Ground immunity

296 So.3d 582

hearings "conducted on or after the statute's effective date." Id. at 190. Boston's immunity hearing took place on November 8, 2017, months after the statute's effective date. Thus, the State had the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Boston was not entitled to immunity. But the proper burden was not applied when the trial court considered Boston's immunity claim.

Rather than conducting the immunity hearing before trial, and after the trial court concluded that it was Boston's burden to show his entitlement to immunity, the parties stipulated that the trial court could consider the immunity motion at trial. The case went to trial, and Boston presented his claim for self-defense. After the defense rested, the trial court considered Boston's immunity claim. The trial court did not require the State to overcome the immunity claim by clear and convincing evidence. Instead, the court found that Boston had not proved his entitlement to immunity. The trial court then correctly instructed the jury on Boston's self-defense claim using the standard jury instructions. It instructed the jury that if the jury had any reasonable doubt, it should find Boston not guilty. The jury found Boston guilty of the charged offense. Under these facts, Boston is not entitled to a new immunity hearing.

When we first considered Boston's appeal, we did not address whether the jury's finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt cured the trial court's failure to apply the correct burden when considering Boston's immunity claim. Months earlier, our Court decided Aviles-Manfredy v. State , 44 Fla. L. Weekly D187, 2019 WL 116471 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan. 7, 2019). There, we held that the amendment to the Stand-Your-Ground statute applied retroactively. See id. When the trial court considered Aviles-Manfredy's immunity claim, it applied the incorrect standard and found that Aviles-Manfredy did not establish entitlement to immunity by a preponderance of evidence. See id . Aviles-Manfredy went to trial and presented his self-defense claim. The jury rejected the claim and found Aviles-Manfredy guilty of the charged offense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But even though the State overcame Aviles-Manfredy's...