Lyle v. State

305 So.3d 588

Pablo LYLE, Petitioner,

v.The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 3D19-2010

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 22, 2020.

Reizenstein & Sola, P.A., and Philip L. Reizenstein and Alex Sola; Lehr, Levi and Mendez, and Bruce Lehr, for petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Asad Ali, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Before LINDSEY, HENDON, and GORDO, JJ.

HENDON, J.

Pablo Lyle (the "Petitioner") challenges the order denying his pre-trial motion seeking immunity from prosecution pursuant to section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2017) (Florida's Stand Your Ground law, effective June 2017). The Petitioner was charged by information with manslaughter as a result of striking the victim in the head with his fist. The victim went into a coma and later died. Lyle moved to dismiss the charge under section 776.032. At the conclusion of the August 2019 pre-trial immunity hearing, the trial judge articulated his reasons for denying immunity and the written order was rendered in September 2019. This Court stayed proceedings until the Florida Supreme Court decided the issue of the statute's retroactivity in Love v. State, 247 So. 3d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).¹

Under our appellate standard of review, the trial court's factual findings are "presumed correct and can be reversed only if they are not supported by competent substantial evidence, while the trial court's legal conclusions are reviewed de novo." Craven v. State, 285 So. 3d 992, 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (citing Mobley v. State, 132 So. 3d 1160, 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ). Pursuant to the Stand Your Ground statute, the prosecution has the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence to overcome the prima facie claim of self-defense:

(4) In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).

§ 776.032(4), Fla. Stat. (2017).

The trial court applied the current standard and correctly ruled that the State met its burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was not entitled to immunity under the statute. The trial court set forth its findings of fact in the order denying immunity, appropriately ruling that clear and convincing evidence supported the legal conclusion that pre-trial immunity was inapplicable to the Petitioner's facts. We find the record contains competent substantial evidence to deny immunity under the statute, and no...