Wonder v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Wonder v. State

64 So. 3d 1208, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 220, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1246, 2011 WL 2061994

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMay 26, 2011

DocketSC10-1741

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 64 So. 3d 1208 (Wonder v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wonder v. State, 64 So. 3d 1208, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 220, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1246, 2011 WL 2061994 (Fla. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

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 *1209 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.

PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 *1209 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.

PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 So. 3d 1208, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 220, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1246, 2011 WL 2061994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wonder-v-state-fla-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack