Harvey M. Hill v. State
143 So. 3d 981
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Harvey Hill, a convicted felon, shot Anton Peavy during an altercation on Hill’s front porch; Hill used a firearm he unlawfully possessed.
- Hill was charged with aggravated battery with a firearm and related offenses; he moved to dismiss based on self‑defense immunity under Florida’s Stand Your Ground statutes.
- At first, Hill invoked §776.013(3) (no duty to retreat in places one has a right to be); the trial court granted dismissal but this court reversed, holding felon‑in‑possession is "unlawful activity" under §776.013(3).
- On remand Hill sought dismissal under §776.012(1) (use of force in defense of person), which lacks express "unlawful activity" language; the trial court denied the motion based on prior language in State v. Hill.
- The Fourth District reviewed en banc to clarify whether a defendant engaged in unlawful activity (e.g., felon in possession) is categorically disqualified from seeking immunity under the Stand Your Ground statutory scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a person engaged in unlawful activity can seek immunity under §776.012(1) | Hill: §776.012(1) contains no "unlawful activity" bar; he may claim self‑defense and immunity under §776.032 based on §776.012 | State: Interpreting §776.013(3) and §776.012 together would render the "unlawful activity" limitation meaningless; Hill previously held felon‑in‑possession disqualifies immunity generally | Court: A person engaged in unlawful activity is precluded from immunity under §776.013(3) but not necessarily under §776.012(1); Hill may pursue immunity under §776.012(1) and §776.032; remand for determination under §776.012(1) |
| Whether prior Fourth DCA language in State v. Hill barred any Stand Your Ground claim by felons | State relied on prior language to deny Hill's second motion | Hill argued prior holding applied only to §776.013(3), not §776.012(1) | Court receded from any overbroad language in State v. Hill that suggested felons are categorically barred from all Stand Your Ground immunity; limited prior holding to §776.013(3) |
| How to reconcile overlap between §776.012(1) and §776.013(3) | Hill: Statutory text controls; §776.012(1) lacks the unlawful activity restriction | State: Reading both sections separately risks conflict and nullifying §776.013(3)'s limitation | Court: Must apply each provision individually; cannot rewrite statutes; ambiguity construed in favor of accused; legislative amendment supports separate application |
| Remedy upon error in trial court's denial of dismissal under §776.012(1) | Hill sought quash of denial and remand for §776.012(1) analysis | State urged adherence to prior reversal on §776.013(3) | Court granted prohibition, quashed trial court order, remanded for determination under §776.012(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hill, 95 So.3d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (original decision addressing §776.013(3) immunity issue)
- Dorsey v. State, 74 So.3d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (held felon possession of firearm qualifies as "unlawful activity" under Stand Your Ground)
- Little v. State, 111 So.3d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (analyzed §776.012 and §776.013 and concluded unlawful‑activity exception does not apply to §776.012)
- State v. Wonder, 128 So.3d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (adopted reasoning that §776.032 immunity can apply via §776.012 even when §776.013's unlawful‑activity bar applies)