Wonder v. State
| Decision Date | 26 May 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. SC10–1741.,SC10–1741. |
| Parties | James Patrick WONDER, Petitioner,v.STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREApplication for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal—Certified Direct Conflict of Decisions, Fourth District—Case No. 4D10–2547 (Broward County).Michael J. Entin and Frank A. Maister, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Petitioner.Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, and Melanie Dale Surber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent.CANADY, C.J.
We have for review Wonder v. State, 52 So.3d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal denied Wonder's petition for a writ of certiorari. The Fourth District concluded that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in denying Wonder's request for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of immunity from prosecution pursuant to section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2009), Florida's “Stand Your Ground” law. The Fourth District certified conflict with Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), and also certified the conflict issue as a question of great public importance. The Fourth District granted Wonder's motion to stay pending this Court's review of Dennis v. State, 17 So.3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
We have since resolved the conflict, concluding that where a criminal defendant files a motion to dismiss on the basis of section 776.032, the trial court should decide the factual question of the applicability of the statutory immunity. See Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456 (Fla.2010). In so holding, we approved the reasoning of Peterson on the conflict issue.
Following that decision, we issued an order directing the State to show cause why this Court should not exercise jurisdiction in the instant case, summarily quash the decision on review, and remand for reconsideration in light of Dennis. The State has filed a response conceding that “given the procedural posture of this case ... this cause should be remanded for reconsideration.”
We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the Fourth District for reconsideration upon application of this Court's decision in Dennis.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wonder v. State
...So.2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), and other cases following Peterson. See Wonder v. State, 52 So.3d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), quashed, 64 So.3d 1208 (Fla.2011). In Wonder v. State, 64 So.3d at 1209, the Florida Supreme Court quashed our opinion and remanded for reconsideration in light of its de......
-
State v. Wonder
...Court of Florida quashed our earlier decision upholding the denial of the defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing. Wonder v. State, 64 So.3d 1208 (Fla.2011). 2. We have recently held that possession of a firearm by a convicted felon constitutes “unlawful activity” and precludes immun......
-
State v. Wonder, s. 4D12–4510
...Court of Florida quashed our earlier decision upholding the denial of the defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing. Wonder v. State, 64 So.3d 1208 (Fla.2011).2 We have held that possession of a firearm by a convicted felon constitutes “unlawful activity” and precludes immunity under t......