Mayers v. State, No. 1D18-2926

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Writing for the Court: Bilbrey, J.
• Citation: 295 So.3d 839
• Docket Number: No. 1D18-2926
• Decision Date: 17 December 2018
• Parties: Clark Daniel MAYERS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

295 So.3d 839

Clark Daniel MAYERS, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-2926

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 17, 2018

Michael Ufferman, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jason W. Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Bilbrey, J.

Petitioner Clark Daniel Mayers seeks a writ of prohibition directing the trial court to dismiss the second degree murder and attempted first degree murder charges currently pending against him based on the Stand Your Ground immunity provided in section 776.032, Florida Statutes. The charges against Petitioner arose out of an incident which occurred on March 5, 2015. After conducting an immunity hearing on February 23, 2018, the trial court entered a detailed written order which determined that the evidence as to whether Petitioner was acting in self-defense was inconclusive. The trial court held that a defendant had the burden to prove immunity because an amendment to section 776.032 applied only prospectively and as such denied immunity to Petitioner. The trial court also held in the alternative that had the burden of proof been on the State, the State failed to meet its burden to show that Petitioner was not entitled to immunity. Because we have recently approved the retroactive application of chapter 2017-72, §§ 1-2, Laws of Florida, which took effect June 9, 2017, and which shifted the burden of proof from the defendant to the prosecution, we grant the petition.¹ See § 776.032(4), Fla. Stat.

295 So.3d 840

In Commander v. State , 246 So.3d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), we were faced with the question of the retroactive application of the amendment to section 776.032(4). There, the State conceded error on appeal because the prosecutor had agreed "the state had the burden to prove that [defendant] was not immune from prosecution under the Stand Your Ground law." Commander, 246 So.3d at 1303. We accepted the State's concession of error in Commander and cited with approval Martin v. State , 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1016, ––– So.3d ––––, 2018 WL 2074171 (Fla. 2d DCA May 4,...