333 So.3d 761
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2022Background
- Justin Bailey was charged with two counts of second-degree murder after a nightclub shooting and asserted Stand Your Ground immunity for himself and defense of his brother.
- Bailey litigated a pretrial Stand Your Ground evidentiary hearing before the 2017 amendment to section 776.032(4), and the trial court denied immunity.
- The Legislature later amended §776.032(4) to place the burden on the State to overcome a prima facie claim by clear and convincing evidence.
- The Florida Supreme Court in Love v. State held the amended burden/quantum applies to immunity hearings held on or after the statute’s effective date, but it declined to give the change full retroactive effect to undo pre-effective hearings.
- Bailey filed a successive immunity motion seeking a new hearing under the amended statute; the trial court denied it because his original hearing occurred before the amendment’s effective date.
- The Third District denied Bailey’s certiorari petition, concluding there was no departure from the essential requirements of law and no controlling precedent requiring a second hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bailey is entitled to a new Stand Your Ground immunity hearing under the amended §776.032(4)/Love | Bailey: Because he has not gone to trial, Love requires a new hearing under the amended burden/clear-and-convincing standard | State/Trial court: Love applies only to hearings held on or after the statute’s effective date; it does not mandate relitigation of pre-effective hearings | Denied — no controlling precedent requires a new hearing; Love does not compel relitigation of hearings held before the amendment’s effective date |
| Whether the denial of a successive hearing departed from the essential requirements of law warranting certiorari relief | Bailey: Denial causes irreparable harm and certiorari is proper because he faces trial and severe penalties | State/Trial court: No clearly established law was violated; district court decisions applying Love support denying rehearing | Denied — petitioner failed to show a departure from essential requirements of law or a clearly established legal directive |
Key Cases Cited
- Love v. State, 286 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 2019) (held amended §776.032(4) applies to immunity hearings conducted on or after its effective date)
- Martin v. State, 313 So. 3d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (treated amended burden/quantum as procedural and applied it to pending cases)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (framework for assessing retroactivity of statutes)
- Shaps v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 826 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2002) (burden of proof is generally procedural for conflict-of-laws/retroactivity purposes)
- Walker & LaBerge, Inc. v. Halligan, 344 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1977) (distinguishes substantive changes from inherently procedural matters like burden of proof)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2003) (standards for certiorari review require departure from clearly established law causing miscarriage of justice)
- State Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Edenfield, 58 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (a district court cannot create new law via certiorari; need controlling precedent)