Mederos v. State, 1D11–3383.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Citation102 So.3d 7
Docket NumberNo. 1D11–3383.,1D11–3383.
PartiesEdward M. MEDEROS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Decision Date10 August 2012

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Richard C. Klugh, Miami, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jay Kubica, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

VAN NORTWICK, J.

Edward M. Mederos petitions for a writ of prohibition following the denial of his motion to dismiss an information charging him with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon (a knife). Below and on appeal, petitioner argues that he is immune from prosecution under Florida's so-called “Stand Your Ground Law.” See§§ 776.012, 776.031–.032, Fla. Stat. (2009). The record before us contains competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings that the facts here do not support the application of immunity under the Stand Your Ground Law. Accordingly, we deny the petition.

The charge against petitioner followed an altercation between petitioner and Derek Smith (the victim) during pregame activities on or near the Florida State University campus before a football contest between Florida State University and the University of Miami. Petitioner is a senior special agent with the Department of Homeland Security, Division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Among the people with petitioner during the pregame festivities was Javier Ribas, a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. As petitioner and his associates made their way to the stadium, Ribas and Derek Smith exchanged verbal insults. According to findings of fact made by the trial court, the matter escalated into a physical altercation between Ribas and Smith, and petitioner Mederos intervened having drawn his service-issued knife. Smith was stabbed in the palm of the hand and, after campus police arrived on the scene, Mederos was arrested and charged. All involved admitted to consuming alcoholic beverages prior to the incident.

The trial court held an evidentiary hearing at which petitioner, Ribas, Smith and several other witnesses testified. The trial court thereafter entered a detailed order denying the motion to dismiss. While petitioner maintained that he was acting in self-defense as well as in defense of Ribas and that he was protecting himself against a forcible felony, the trial court found that petitioner had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his conduct warranted immunity as a matter of law. In pertinent part, the trial court found:

Defendant, along with Mr. Ribas and Mr. Mesa, was walking toward the football game, after an afternoon of tailgating and drinking some beer, when they began engaging in banter with fans from the opposing team. This was initially friendly. At some point an altercation erupted between Mr. Ribas and Mr. Smith. Defendant subsequently became involved in the altercation with Mr. Smith.

The testimony from the various witnesses describing what occurred on the day in question contradicts wildly. Mr. Ribas, Mr. Mesa, and Mr. Mederos testified that Mr. Smith strangled Mr. Ribas. However, Mr. Rogers, Ms. Rinehart, Mr. Honeysuckle, and Mr. Baar testified to only seeing a shoving match between Mr. Smith, Mr. Mederos and Mr. Ribas. Likewise, Mr. Smith denied choking Mr. Ribas. The photograph of Mr. Ribas' throat taken shortly after the incident showed red markings, consistent with trauma. Dr. Wright also testified that the redness on the throat was consistent with strangulation. However, he conceded on cross examination that the injury depicted could have come from repeated open-handed shoves to the throat.

Based on all the testimony and the evidence, the Court finds that there was a physical altercation, which led to strangulation-type pressure being applied to Mr. Ribas' throat. However, given Mr. Ribas' testimony of his extensive training as a U.S. [Air] Marshall and then as an ATF agent, the fact that he was able to assist the victim with first aid, and the conflicting testimony of other witnesses, the Court does not fully credit Defendant's and Mr. Ribas' claim as to the severity of the attack or that Mr. Ribas was utterly unable to defend himself.

Regardless of the extent of attack on Mr. Ribas, the testimony of the people who saw the “strangulation” established that Defendant thwarted the continued attack on Mr. Ribas and pulled him from the danger. It was subsequent to removing Mr. Ribas from imminent danger that Defendant continued his altercation with Mr. Smith, ultimately cutting Mr. Smith with his officer's knife. Neither Mr. Smith nor any of his companions had weapons: only Defendant was brandishing a knife.

Once the attack on Mr. Ribas was over and he was removed from the zone of imminent danger, the putative forcible felony was over. At this point any right that Defendant had to use deadly force in defense of Mr. Ribas terminated as to the forcible felony. [Citation omitted.] Florida Statute sections 776.012, 776.013, and 776.031, when read together, allow for the use of deadly force only to prevent the commission of a forcible felony or for self-defense or defense of another, when the person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Once the forcible felony was terminated, for immunity to attach, Defendant's use of deadly force must have been based on a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to himself or Mr. Ribas. The Court finds that Defendant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his fear of great bodily harm was reasonable. Mr. Smith was intoxicated and unarmed and was throwing punches. Defendant, a Federal law enforcement officer, had been through Federal training on hand-to-hand defensive tactics. Defendant could have defended himself against further aggression without using a deadly weapon. Defendant's contention that he and his friends were outnumbered by the crowd does not change this finding. Defendant claims that the crowd was hostile and that he feared they would join Mr. Smith in the altercation. However, Defendant offers nothing more than his conclusory testimony that the crowd was egging Mr. Smith on, to establish that he felt the crowd would join in. Further, this claim is contradicted by the testimony of Ms. Rinehart, Mr. Honeysuckle, and Mr. Rogers, who testified that the crowd was not particularly hostile.

Moreover, Defendant contends that he did not use his weapon in aggression but merely had it in his hand as he was defending himself from Mr. Smith's punches. The physical evidence of Mr. Smith's injury indicates otherwise. The laceration that Defendant inflicted to Mr. Smith's hands was on the palm and was very deep. This is inconsistent with a defensive wound inflicted from a forceful jab with a knife. The physical evidence lends credence to Mr. Honeysuckle's testimony that Defendant was using the knife in an offensive manner rather than merely holding it up in a defensive posture.

(Citations omitted).

In 2005, the Florida Legislature substantially amended chapter 776, Florida Statutes, by a series of enactments collectively known as the Stand Your Ground Law. Ch. 2005–27, Laws of Fla. The Stand Your Ground Law abrogates the common law duty to retreat and generally authorizes the use of force in self-defense or in the defense of others. Significantly for the case under review, the act authorizes the use of deadly force when such force is reasonably believed necessary to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, or the commission of a ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Palmer v. Inch
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • February 5, 2021
    ...just prior to the stabbing that could reasonably be read as conflicting with her self-defense theory. See, e.g., Mederos v. State, 102 So. 3d 7, 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (denying petition for writ of probation challenging trial court's denial of motion to dismiss on basis of immunity from pro......
  • Bretherick v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 9, 2015
    ...establish entitlement to immunity by a preponderance of the evidence at the pretrial evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., Mederos v. State, 102 So.3d 7, 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ; State v. Gallo, 76 So.3d 407, 409 & n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) ; State v. Vino, 100 So.3d 716, 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) ; J......
  • Derossett v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 7, 2019
    ...the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss and for Stand Your Ground immunity from prosecution. See Mederos v. State , 102 So. 3d 7, 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ("A writ of prohibition is the proper vehicle for challenging a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss a charge made on the......
  • Perdido Key Island Resort Dev., L.L.P. v. Regions Bank
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 18, 2012
    ... ... State Bd. of Admin. v. Burns, 70 So.3d 678, 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); see O'Keefe Architects, Inc. v. CED ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Pretrial motions and defenses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • April 30, 2021
    ...felony. Appropriate procedural vehicle to raise immunity under “Stand Your Ground” is a pretrial motion to dismiss. Mederos v. State, 102 So. 3d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) PRETRIAL MOTIONS, DEFENSES 3.9 The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook 3-70 The court errs in deferring until trial defendant’s ......
  • Appeals
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • April 30, 2021
    ...is the proper vehicle for challenging trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss based on “Stand Your Ground.” Mederos v. State, 102 So. 3d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) Briefing is required in a non-summary disposal of a 3.850 motion after an evidentiary hearing. The state erroneously files a not......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT