WILSON v. STATE (2020)

Darrell Wilson petitions this Court for a writ of prohibition following the denial of his motion to dismiss the attempted murder charges against him. Wilson does not dispute that he shot the adult and child victims, but he contends he is immune from prosecution under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law because he acted in self-defense. See § 776.012(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). After an immunity hearing where the trial court made credibility calls and weighed conflicting evidence, the court determined that the State presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome the self-defense claim. Because there is competent, substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings, we deny the petition for writ of prohibition on the merits. See Mederos v. State, 102 So. 3d 7, 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (affirming denial of Stand Your Ground immunity where the testimony below “contradict[ed] wildly” and there was competent, substantial evidence that the defendant was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed the victim); Spires v. State, 180 So. 3d 1175, 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“[S]o long as there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings, the reviewing court must yield.”).

Denied.

Ray, C.J.

Rowe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.