Florida appellate court holds that Stand Your Ground statutes are independent of each other

On April 10, 2013,  the Second District Court of Appeal decided the case of Little v. State, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D790 (Fla. 2DCA 2013), exactly per the  reasoning  of my much earlier 9/12/12 blog article that discussed some very important issues on conflicts regarding the "retreat rule".   The Little case fully supported my earlier arguments.  

To understand . . . in the Little case, a convicted felon carrying a firearm was forced to use a firearm to defend his life.  The circumstances were clear -- and "but for" being a convicted felon -- there was no real question that he had no other choice but to use the firearm if he were to save his life.   The trial court denied his  "Stand Your Ground"  motion -- with the State arguing that because he was unlawfully carrying a gun, he was precluded from having immunity under 776.013.  The Second District rejected this argument, and stated that since Mr. Little did not seek immunity under 776.013 -- but instead,  had sought it under 776.012 -- he was still entitled to immunity if he reasonably believed the use of deadly force "was necessary to prevent  death or great bodily harm".   The appellate court then held his use of self defense was lawful, and that he was absolutely entitled to immunity under section 776.012.   A GREAT decision!

The District Court of Appeals also "certified" its decision to the Florida Supreme Court because it felt there was a possible conflict with the decision in State v. Hill, supra (fully discussed in my earlier blog article), that was important enough that the Florida Supreme Court needed to resolve it. 

So . . .  it looks like my record in the book and this blog on appellate court predictions is still ten for ten.  I'll keep trying to do my best -- keeping you up-to-date on the law.