COLEMAN v. STATE (2020)

Mr. Coleman petitions us to prohibit the trial court from trying him for the attempted second-degree murder of his then-girlfriend with a weapon, a knife, with which he admits he stabbed her in the throat. The trial court conducted a pretrial evidentiary hearing on Mr. Coleman's motion to dismiss his charges under the Stand Your Ground Immunity statutes. See §§ 776.012, 776.013, 776.032, Fla. Stat. (2018). We find that competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court's denial of immunity, and therefore we deny the petition on the merits.

The immunity hearing was a tale of two stories. The victim had been dating Mr. Coleman for over a year and living with him for about four months. He was 65 and had previous leg and hip injuries; she was 58. They went out dancing, and although she had only a couple of sips of a drink, he was drinking high-alcohol drinks (211's). He danced with another woman, leaving his girlfriend's purse unattended at their table. They argued there, on the way home, and after they got home. She said he taunted her to touch him, and she “mushed” him in the face with her open hand, whereupon he went to the kitchen, got a knife, pinned her to the couch, and cut her throat. He said she did much more: beating him, jumping on him, knocking him down. He was afraid he might fall and break a bone, so when he stumbled, he supported himself on the coffee table with his right arm, used his left arm to grab a knife that just happened to be on the coffee table, swung blindly backwards with his left hand, and just happened to slice her throat.

In addition to hearing this and other testimony at the immunity hearing, the trial court heard Mr. Coleman's 911 call, in which no such altercation or claimed threat of bodily harm was mentioned. Instead, the call begins with Mr. Coleman stating he “stuck a m**f**ing knife into some lady's throat,” and “put a knife on her a**,” then turning away from the phone and yelling “shut the f** up.” The trial court watched the bodycam video of Mr. Coleman talking to responding officers, in which for the first time he repeatedly asserted self-defense, which he continued to assert at the evidentiary hearing.

The trial court had before it competent and substantial evidence pertinent to the immunity issue. It was the trial court's province to determine credibility and to weigh any conflicts in the evidence. The trial court found the victim more credible, and found Mr. Coleman's testimony implausible. We will not second-guess that determination. We find that competent and substantial evidence supported the trial court's denial of immunity under the clear and convincing evidence standard. See Ferrera-Discua v. State, 276 So. 3d 520, 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019); Edwards v. State, 257 So. 3d 586, 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). Mr. Coleman still may assert self-defense at trial. See Ferrera-Discua, 276 So. 3d at 520.

The Petition is DENIED on the merits.

Kelsey, J.

Osterhaus and Jay, JJ., concur.