STATE v. HARRIS (2024)

Affirmed. See Nadell v. Hursey, 363 So. 3d 1135, 1140-41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“In conducting our competent, substantial evidence review, ‘[t]he trial court's factual findings are presumed correct’ and this Court ‘must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court's ruling.’ We do not reweigh the evidence. Nor does it matter that Nadell's version of events is supported by evidence that conflicts with Hursey's version of events. ‘It only matters that the version the trial court believed is supported by competent, substantial evidence.’ ”) (quoting Spires v. State, 180 So. 3d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) and Snow v. State, 352 So. 3d 529, 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)). See also State v. Quevedo, 357 So. 3d 1249, 1253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (the trial court is required to apply an objective standard, which “requires the court to determine whether, based on circumstances as they appeared to the defendant when he or she acted, a reasonable and prudent person situated in the same circumstances and knowing what the defendant knew would have used the same force as did the defendant.”) (citations omitted).

PER CURIAM.