Lonnie Riggens v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledAugust 19, 2022
Docket2D21-3627
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
LONNIE RIGGENS,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
No. 2D21-3627
August 19, 2022
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the County Court for Pinellas
County; Theodora C. Komninos, Judge.
Sara Mollo, Public Defender and Daniela Gomez, Assistant Public
Defender, Clearwater, for Petitioner.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General and Jeffrey H. Siegal, Assistant
Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent.
KELLY, Judge.
Lonnie Riggens seeks certiorari review of the trial court's order
denying his motion to dismiss based on Florida's Stand Your
Ground law, section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2020). We grant the
petition and quash the order.
The State charged Riggens with simple battery. Riggens filed a
motion to dismiss alleging self-defense under Florida's Stand Your
Ground law. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion
because it was unsworn.
As we explained in Jefferson v. State, 264 So. 3d 1019, 1028-
29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), to raise a claim of immunity under section
776.032, "an accused must simply allege a facially sufficient prima
facie claim of justifiable use of force under chapter 776 in a motion
to dismiss filed under [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 3.190(b)
and present argument in support of that motion at a pretrial
immunity hearing." The trial court is to assume all facts as true,
and if the alleged facts satisfy the requirements of the applicable
self-defense statute raised by the accused, the burden shifts to the
State to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome the self-
defense claim. Id. at 1029; see also Casanova v. State, 335 So. 3d
1231, 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (holding that a defendant's motion
to dismiss under Florida's Stand Your Ground law can establish a
prima facie claim of self-defense even though the motion to dismiss
2
is not sworn to by someone with personal knowledge or supported
by evidence or testimony establishing the facts in the motion to
dismiss). Because there is no requirement that the motion be
sworn, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the order
denying Riggens' motion to dismiss.
Petition granted; order quashed.
SILBERMAN and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
3