Satyanand v. State
| Decision Date | 19 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D14–222.,5D14–222. |
| Citation | 147 So.3d 662 |
| Parties | Deodat SATYANAND, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wayne C. Golding, Sr., The Golding Law Group, PLC, Orlando, for Petitioner.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.
Deodat Satyanand filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to conduct a pretrial evidentiary hearing on his motion to dismiss the charges based on immunity from prosecution under section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2012) (). Because Satyanand is entitled to receive a pretrial evidentiary hearing on this issue, we grant the petition.
Satyanand was charged with aggravated battery with great bodily harm. He filed a motion seeking dismissal of the charges, claiming immunity from prosecution under section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2012). A hearing on the motion was scheduled, but was continued at the request of the defense. Since the initial scheduling, numerous hearings to address the motion to dismiss were scheduled, but were either cancelled or continued because of good faith scheduling conflicts between the State, the trial court, and the defense. The trial court has now scheduled the case for trial and has verbally stated that it would address Satyanand's motion to dismiss during the trial and not at a pretrial evidentiary hearing.
Given this pronouncement, Satyanand filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to require the trial court to hold a pretrial evidentiary hearing on his motion. We issued an order to show cause for the State to respond. The State responded and conceded that , but argued that Satyanand had not met his burden of demonstrating that he is entitled to receive mandamus relief and that most of the continuances in the trial court below were at the defense's request.
Case law supports Satyanand's argument that the trial court is required to conduct a pretrial evidentiary hearing on motions to dismiss based on a claim of immunity under section 776.032. Specifically, in Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456, 461–64 (Fla.2010), the Florida Supreme Court expressly held that where a criminal defendant files a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 776.032, the trial court should conduct a pretrial evidentiary hearing and decide the factual question of the applicability of statutory immunity. In so holding, the Court explained that “section 776.032 contemplates that a defendant who establishes entitlement to the statutory immunity will not be subjected to trial[,]” and expressly approved the First District's ruling in Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27, 29–30 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), which concluded that a trial court must conduct a pretrial evidentiary hearing to determine whether immunity attaches. Dennis, 51 So.3d at 462, 464 ; see also Prof'l Roofing & Sales, Inc....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boston v. State, 1D17-5190
...pretrial evidentiary hearing and decide the factual question of the applicability of statutory immunity); see also Satyanand v. State , 147 So.3d 662, 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ; Martinez v. State , 44 So.3d 1219, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ; Peterson v. State , 983 So.2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2......
-
Heylin v. Gulfstream Prop. & Cas. Ins., Co.
... ... Co., 937 So.2d 695, 697 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ). Furthermore, this court reviews a trial court's interpretation of a contract de novo. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 134 So.3d 505, 507 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (citations omitted). In Adams, we addressed this same issue. 632 So.2d at ... ...
-
Pretrial motions and defenses
...use of force contemplated that a defendant who established entitlement to immunity would not be subjected to a trial. Satyanand v. State, 147 So.3d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) When the face of the motion to dismiss indicates that a factual dispute exists (here, whether the defendants were autho......