Michael Douglas Coleman v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledOctober 16, 2020
Docket1D19-3598
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D19-3598
_____________________________
MICHAEL DOUGLAS COLEMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
_____________________________
Petition for Writ of Prohibition—Original Jurisdiction.
October 16, 2020
KELSEY, J.
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.
OSTERHAUS and JAY, JJ., concur.
2
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Frederick J. Gant, Pensacola, for Petitioner.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Robert Quentin Humphrey,
Assistant Attorney General, and Steven Edward Woods, Assistant
Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
3