Major FL Court Grants Stand Your Ground Immunity for Aggravated Assault – Here’s Why

March 5, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Case Summary

Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled the defendant was entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity for aggravated assault after he believed home invaders were in his yard – even though these were actually FPL workers coming to disconnect his electricity.

• CASE: State v. Vino, 100 So.3d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
• Charge(s): Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Unlawful Discharge of a Firearm
• Outcome: Judge’s order granting Stand Your Ground immunity AFFIRMED, as the defendant reasonably believed the FPL workers were potential burglars.

Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon Charges in Florida

In Florida, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (Fla. Stat. 784.021(1)(a)) is an extremely serious felony. For someone to be guilty, the State must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant made an intentional and unlawful threat of imminent violence
• The defendant had the apparent apparent ability to carry out the threat 
• The threat was of such a nature as to create well-founded fear in the victim that violence was about to occur
• A deadly weapon was used in the course of making the threat (e.g. brandished, pointed, swung)

Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. If certain victims are involved (e.g. law enforcement, EMTs, elderly), it becomes a second-degree felony – punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. For more on this, click here.

For aggravated assault purposes, Florida’s courts (e.g. Daniels v. State, 308 So. 3d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)) define a deadly weapon as any instrument or object that is used or threatened to be used in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm. A firearm is a deadly weapon as a matter of law. For more, click here.

If someone is accused of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, this is quite scary. However, one potential defense to this is the Stand Your Ground law (Fla. Stat. 776.012, 776.013, 776.031, 776.032, 776.041) – which provides legal immunity to anyone who lawfully uses or threatens to use deadly or nondeadly force, so long as that person is:

• Not actively engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used/threatened (the sole potential exception is felon in-possession of a firearm, per Little v. State, 111 So. 3d 214 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2013)
• Was not the initiator, aggressor, or provoker (an initiator can invoke Stand Your Ground ONLY if the initiator retreats after using force, announces they are retreating/will NOT use any further force against the victim, and they have no choice but to use/threaten the force to avoid imminent death or serious bodily injury)

Note: Unless a defendant establishes that the alleged “deadly weapon” that was used/threatened to be used was not actually a deadly weapon, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon qualifies as the threatened use of DEADLY FORCE under state law. Espichan v. State, 391 So.3d 653 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)

If someone believes their use or threatened use of deadly or nondeadly force was justified under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, an experienced and aggressive criminal defense attorney may file a pretrial motion to dismiss (pursuant to SYG). This triggers the requirement for a pretrial immunity hearing, which you can learn more about here.

At that hearing, the defendant must first make a prima facie showing that their use or threatened use of force (deadly or nondeadly) was JUSTIFIED under Stand Your Ground (entitling them to pretrial immunity from further prosecution). Jefferson v. State, 264 So.3d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). 

Per Jefferson v. State, 264 So.3d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), a prima facie case does not require the defendant to present any evidence. It only requires that the defendant allege a specific set of facts that, if the State fails to refute by clear and convincing evidence, would make the use or threatened use of force justified under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

In an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (such as a firearm) case, this would mean that the defendant has to make a prima facie showing that they reasonably believed the conduct that was the basis of the aggravated assault charge was necessary to:

• Prevent death or serious bodily harm to themselves 
• Prevent death or serious bodily harm to others
• Prevent the IMMINENT commission of a forcible felony (e.g. sexual battery, kidnapping, armed robbery)

In the event that a prima facie case is made by the defendant for a justified use of force in the Stand Your Ground motion/at the hearing, the burden then shifts to the State to disprove the defendant’s “narrative” by clear and convincing evidence.

In other words – the State must show that the defendant’s “version of events” that supposedly entitles the defendant to immunity, is refuted by the actual evidence as to what occurred. If the State fails to do so, the charges against the defendant must be dismissed before trial (e.g. at the conclusion of the pretrial immunity hearing).

If a trial judge denies a defendant’s pretrial motion to dismiss pursuant to Stand Your Ground, they may appeal this decision to the District Court of Appeal that has jurisdiction over the trial judge (via a writ of prohibition or writ of certiorari). The DCA, upon hearing the case, may do either of the following:

• Grant the defendant’s petition, finding that the trial judge erred as a matter of law by denying the motion to dismiss (resulting in the DISMISSAL of the charge(s))
• Deny the defendant’s petition, finding that the trial judge did not err – allowing the case to proceed to trial

In one MAJOR aggravated assault Stand Your Ground case, a man was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (Fla. Stat. 784.021(1)(a)) after pointing a gun at two FPL workers who entered his yard using a ladder to cut his electricity (due to lack of payment) The defendant thought they were invaders – so went out to confront them with his gun.

Upon realizing the men were with FPL (Florida Power and Light), the defendant put down his gun and had a brief confrontation with the pair. As they went to depart, the defendant fired his gun, likely in an effort to scare the workers. He faced charges of:

• Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (for pointing the gun)
• Unlawful discharge of a firearm
• Improper exhibition of a firearm

At the conclusion of the Stand Your Ground immunity hearing, the trial judge DISMISSED the aggravated assault and improper exhibition charges, finding the defendant reasonably believed that the threatened use of deadly force was necessary to prevent a potential home invasion. 

However, the trial judge did NOT dismiss the unlawful discharge of a firearm charge, finding that the defendant shot his gun unnecessarily (since the FPL workers were already leaving).

Both parties (State and defense) appealed the ruling – with the State arguing that the trial judge wrongly dismissed the aggravated assault and improper exhibition charges, and the defendant claiming that ALL charges should’ve been dismissed. 

Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal (Miami’s highest court), which heard the case, disagreed with both parties and AFFIRMED the trial judge’s ruling on all counts. Let’s take a look at the case – State v. Vino, 100 So.3d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) – and discuss what it means for those in Florida claiming Stand Your Ground immunity in aggravated assault cases.

KEY CASE: State v. Vino, 100 So.3d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) 

In Vino, the defendant (Vino) was arrested and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, unlawful discharge of a firearm, and improper exhibition of a firearm. 

At a Stand Your Ground immunity hearing, the judge DISMISSED Counts 1 and 2 (aggravated assault on the two FPL workers), as well as Count 4 (improper exhibition), but allowed the State to proceed to trial on Count 3. The facts revealed at the hearing were as follows:

• According to Vino and a neighbor, the FPL workers climbed over Vino’s locked fence using a ladder (at approximately 10 in the morning) and were in his yard
• Vino was asleep in his living room and awoke to his dog barking
• Vino rushed outside and pointed his gun at the workers
• Vino claimed he was not alerted by the FPL workers as to their presence (though the FPL workers may have yelled out to identify themselves while Vino was sleeping)
• When Vino realized the men in his yard were FPL employees, he put down his gun – but grew angry and ordered them off the property
• Vino shot his gun into the air as the pair were exiting

The testifying FPL workers claimed that before they climbed Vino’s fence, they were confronted by Vino – who hit one of them over the head with his gun and fired his rifle at them as they ran away. However, this testimony was seen as NOT credible by the trial judge.

Given the evidence, the judge concluded that Vino was entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity for aggravated assault and improper exhibition of a firearm – but not the unlawful discharge. The trial judge wrote:

“This Court, following the dictates of the Stand Your Ground legislation, and consistent with the State’s Statement of Particulars as orally given to the Court during the hearing, therefore hereby dismisses Counts I, II and IV of the Information without prejudice to the State to refile any counts they in good faith believe they could proceed on after the point that the defendant realized the two men were FPL employees and therefore no burglars who posed a forcible felony threat to the defendant or his family. Count III, unlawful discharge of a firearm, is not dismissed as it clearly occurred after the defendant realized the two men were FPL employees and no longer a forcible felony threat.”

Both parties appealed to the 3rd DCA, with the State arguing that the trial judge shouldn’t have dismissed ANY charges – while Vino argued the judge should have also dismissed the unlawful discharge count (Count 3). 

Upon reviewing the trial judge’s order, the 3rd DCA found it AGREED with him – and affirmed the dismissal of Counts 1, 2, and 4 while affirming the refusal to dismiss Count 3. The 3rd DCA wrote:

“On appeal, the trial court’s legal conclusion is reviewed de novo, but its findings of fact are presumed correct and can be reversed only if they are not supported by competent substantial evidence. See Mederos v. State, 102 So.3d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Loredo v. State, 836 So.2d 1103, 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). In conducting its review, an appellate court must restrain itself from the natural human impulse to consider that its own view of the facts is superior to that of a trial judge. See Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla. 1977). So long as there is competent substantial evidence to support the findings made by the judge who was on the scene, the reviewing court must yield. Id. at 57. After a careful review of all of the testimony taken in this case, we conclude the findings of the trial court are supported by competent substantial evidence.”

“We also approve the trial court’s legal conclusion in this case, holding that Vino *720 may claim the stand your ground defense only up to the point he learned the individuals on his property were FPL employees. Accordingly, the State is free to either amend or refile its information to include only the events after Vino’s immunity ended … For all of these reasons, we affirm the well-reasoned decision of the trial court.”

Put simply, because there was “competent, substantial” evidence to support the judge’s findings, the 3rd DCA affirmed his order granting Vino partial Stand Your Ground immunity – including on the aggravated assault charge.

In sum, State v. Vino, 100 So.3d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law on aggravated assault and Stand Your Ground immunity. The 3rd DCA found that:

• Vino reasonably believed that he was being threatened with home invasion by the FPL workers, so the display of his firearm/confronting them was JUSTIFIED under Stand Your Ground 
• This entitled Vino to dismissal of Counts 1, 2, and 4 (two counts of aggravated assault, one count of improper exhibition of a firearm)
• However, Vino’s discharge of a firearm while the workers were leaving occurred after the “threat” was over 
• Thus, he was not entitled to pretrial immunity on Count 3

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of State v. Vino, 100 So.3d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), as it is a seminal case on the issue of Stand Your Ground immunity when someone is facing aggravated assault charges.

Aggravated assault can carry lengthy prison sentences and heavy financial penalties. If someone is charged, it is vital to find experienced and aggressive legal representation as soon as possible. 

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting criminal charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share