165 So. 3d 852
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2011 Rosario was charged with two counts of attempted first-degree murder and drug-related offenses after a July 6, 2011 shooting during a failed robbery at a drug deal.
- Rosario filed a pretrial motion (Stand Your Ground) under §776.032 claiming he fired in defense after hearing his friend was shot; he sought dismissal under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(b).
- In 2014 the Legislature amended §776.012 via HB 89 to bar Stand Your Ground immunity for persons "engaged in criminal activity." The trial court applied the 2014 amendments and denied Rosario’s motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- The State conceded the trial court erred to the extent it applied the 2014 amendments retroactively, but argued prohibition was not the proper remedy and suggested certiorari (which would have been untimely).
- The First DCA treated the petition as a proper writ of prohibition, found the trial court erred by applying the 2014 law retroactively to a 2011 shooting, and granted relief, remanding for an evidentiary hearing under the 2011 statute.
Issues
| Issue | Rosario's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HB 89's 2014 amendment barring immunity for those "engaged in criminal activity" could be applied retroactively to a 2011 shooting | HB 89 cannot be applied retroactively; 2011 statute governs | HB 89 clarified prior law and could be applied | Held for Rosario: 2011 statute applies; retroactive application was error |
| Whether writ of prohibition is the proper vehicle to review denial of Stand Your Ground dismissal without evidentiary hearing | Prohibition appropriate to prevent further jurisdictional exercise | Certiorari is the proper corrective remedy; prohibition is improper here | Held prohibition is appropriate because it prevents unlawful continuation of jurisdiction |
| Whether denial of pretrial evidentiary hearing on immunity is reviewable as jurisdictional error | Denial deprives court of jurisdiction to proceed if immunity applies | Trial court retained jurisdiction; remedy should be via certiorari | Held denial can implicate jurisdiction; prohibition available to stop trial court from proceeding |
| Whether Rosario forfeited jurisdictional challenge by not using the word "jurisdiction" | Failure to use term should not bar relief; immunity question equates to jurisdiction | Failure to invoke jurisdictional label precludes prohibition | Held label not required; immunity inquiry can be recast as jurisdictional question |
Key Cases Cited
- Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (Stand Your Ground creates immunity, not merely an affirmative defense)
- Mederos v. State, 102 So. 3d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (procedure: pretrial motion and evidentiary hearing to resolve immunity disputes)
- Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2010) (framework for evidentiary hearings on Stand Your Ground claims)
- Little v. State, 111 So. 3d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (denial of dismissal on immunity reviewed by prohibition)
- Prof'l Roofing & Sales, Inc. v. Flemming, 138 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (prohibition granted after denial without evidentiary hearing)
- Heilman v. State, 135 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (similar prohibition practice following denial)
- Dorsey v. State, 149 So. 3d 144 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (applying pre-amendment law to incidents before HB 89)
- McGriff v. State, 160 So. 3d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (same: 2011 statute governs pre-HB 89 shootings)
- Joseph v. State, 103 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (immunity issue can be framed as a question of trial court jurisdiction)