## Facts

- Gabriel Mobley and friends were at a restaurant when they had a heated verbal dispute with two men later identified as Jason Gonzalez and Roly Carrazana.
- After the dispute ended, Mobley’s group delayed leaving due to continued hostile looks between the groups.
- In the parking lot, Gonzalez and Carrazana were still present and approached Mobley’s group.
- The attack on Mobley’s group was unprovoked; Gonzalez and Carrazana punched Mobley’s friend Jose “Chico” Correa in the face, causing profuse bleeding.
- The assailants then turned toward Mobley in a threatening manner.
- Mobley testified he did not know what Chico had been hit with and feared further violence.
- Mobley saw one assailant reach under his shirt in a way Mobley interpreted as reaching for a weapon.
- Mobley, who was lawfully armed, fired five shots, killing Gonzalez and Carrazana.
- Mobley was charged with two counts of second-degree murder.
- Mobley moved pretrial to dismiss the charges, asserting statutory immunity under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.
- The trial court denied immunity on the ground that Mobley’s use of deadly force was unreasonable because he did not actually see a weapon.
- Mobley sought review by petition for writ of prohibition to prevent further prosecution.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court misapplied Stand Your Ground immunity by requiring that Mobley actually see a weapon rather than applying an objective reasonable-person standard to the circumstances.
2. Whether, on the pretrial record, Mobley established entitlement to statutory immunity from prosecution, warranting prohibition to stop the case from proceeding.

## Decision

- The appellate court granted the petition for writ of prohibition and held Mobley was entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity.
- The court concluded the trial court erred by treating the absence of a visible weapon as dispositive and by not applying the correct objective reasonableness standard.
- Applying the proper standard, the court held the unprovoked, sudden, violent attack on Chico, the profuse bleeding, the immediate turn toward Mobley, and the reaching-under-the-shirt gesture supported a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.
- The court withheld formal issuance of the writ in expectation that the trial court would dismiss the charges consistent with the ruling.
- A dissent would have deferred to the trial court’s assessment of credibility and disputed facts and allowed the prosecution to continue.

## Legal Principles

- Stand Your Ground immunity applies when a defendant reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to self or another, or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
- The immunity determination uses an objective standard: whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s circumstances would have perceived the need to use deadly force.
- A defendant need not actually see a weapon if the surrounding circumstances would cause a reasonable person to fear imminent deadly harm.
- Review of immunity rulings defers to trial-court factual findings supported by competent substantial evidence, but reviews legal conclusions de novo.
- Prohibition is an appropriate procedural vehicle to prevent prosecution when a defendant is entitled to statutory immunity.

## Conclusion

The court held that Stand Your Ground immunity barred Mobley’s prosecution because, under an objective reasonable-person standard, the unprovoked and violent parking-lot attack and the assailant’s reaching under his shirt made Mobley’s use of deadly force legally justified, and the trial court erred by effectively requiring visual confirmation of a weapon.


Mobley v. State, 132 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2014)