RADCLIFFE BUTTLER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A petition for writ of prohibition is denied when the trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[1] In reviewing a trial court's denial of a petition for writ of prohibition based on immunity from prosecution, the appellate court applies a mixed standard: legal conclusi…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We apply a mixed standard of review in assessing whether a criminal defendant is immune from prosecution. We review the trial court's legal conclusions de novo, while we review its findings of historical facts for competent, substantial evidence.”
Citation to Hoempler v. State regarding the standard of review for immunity claims
Radcliffe Buttler petitioned for writs of prohibition and certiorari in an original jurisdiction case against the State of Florida.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mixed Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 3, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D25-0998 Lower Tribunal No. F22-5144 ________________ Radcliffe Buttler, Petitioner, vs. State of Florida, Respondent. A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition and Certiorari. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jennifer Thornton, Assistant Public Defender, for petitioner. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Ivy Ginsberg, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for respondent. Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Having reviewed the petition for writ of prohibition and finding the trial court’s findings supported by competent, substantial evidence, it is hereby denied. See Hoempler v. State, 406 So. 3d 1116, 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“We apply a mixed standard of review in assessing whether a criminal defendant is immune from prosecution. We review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo, while we review its findings of historical facts for competent, substantial evidence.”); Figueroa v. State, 393 So. 3d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“[T]here is substantial competent evidence in the record to support the trial court’s determination that the State had overcome the prima facie claim of self-defense immunity by clear and convincing evidence. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact.”); see also Viera v. State, 163 So. 3d 602, 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). As to the petition for writ of certiorari, it is dismissed.