Commander v. State
| Decision Date | 09 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D18–36,1D18–36 |
| Parties | Bryant COMMANDER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
246 So.3d 1303 (Mem)
Bryant COMMANDER, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 1D18–36
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
July 9, 2018
Rudolph C. "Rusty" Shepard, Jr., Jean Marie Downing, and Chad R. Templeton of Shepard Law, Panama City, for Petitioner.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Per Curiam.
Bryant Commander was charged with aggravated assault with a firearm based on an incident that occurred in a Walmart parking lot in November 2016. He filed a motion to dismiss the charges under the Stand Your Ground law ( § 776.032, Fla. Stat.) in July 2017. The trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing.
Commander sought review of the trial court's ruling by filing a petition for writ of prohibition in this court. In the petition, Commander argued that the trial court erred by imposing the burden of proof on him to establish his immunity from prosecution under the Stand Your Ground law. We ordered the state to show cause why the petition should not be granted, and in response, the state conceded error based on the prosecutor's agreement at the evidentiary hearing that the state had the burden to prove that Commander was not immune from prosecution under the Stand Your Ground law.
We accept the state's concession of error because it is supported by the record and
is consistent with the statute in effect at the time of the evidentiary hearing. See § 776.032(4), Fla. Stat. (2017) (created by chapter 2017–72, Laws of Florida, effective June 9, 2017); see also Martin v. State , ––– So.3d ––––, 2018 WL 2074171 (Fla. 2d DCA May 4, 2008) (holding that the 2017 amendment changing the burden of proof under the Stand Your Ground law was procedural in nature and, thus, could be applied retroactively in cases involving offenses committed prior to the amendment's effective date); but see Love v. State , ––– So.3d ––––, 2018 WL 2169980 (Fla. 3d DCA May 11, 2018) (certifying conflict with Martin and holding that the 2017...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hicks v. State
...(Fla. Jun. 26, 2018). This court has sided with those arguing the change does apply to those offenses, see Commander v. State , 246 So. 3d 1303, 1303-04 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), and the conflict is pending before the Florida Supreme Court, Love , No. SC18-747. Although Commander held the change......
-
Fuller v. State
...Martin v. State , 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1016, ––– So.3d ––––, 2018 WL 2074171 (Fla. 2d DCA May 4, 2018), and Commander v. State , 246 So.3d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). Not allowing retrospective application: Love v. State , 247 So.3d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), review granted , No. SC18-747, 2018 WL......
-
Derossett v. State
...Our other two sister courts had held otherwise, concluding that section 776.032(4) applied retroactively. See Commander v. State , 246 So. 3d 1303, 1303–04 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) ; Martin v. State , 313 So.3d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA May 4, 2018).14 Shortly after the trial court held the evidentiary h......
-
Hicks v. State
...entitled to a new procedure for that pretrial hearing.10 In closing, I note that this position is consistent with Commander v. State, 246 So. 3d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). In Commander, the amendment to section 776.032(4) became effective after Commander committed the alleged crime, but befo......