North FL’s Highest Court TOSSES OUT Repeat Violence Injunction For Two Interesting Reasons

October 12, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal held that an injunction against repeat violence should not have been issued, as there was no evidence the respondent engaged in “repeat violence.”

CASE: Williams v. Gonder, 133 So.3d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)

Charge(s): Repeat Violence Injunction

Outcome: Injunction SET ASIDE, as Gonder did not provide evidence Williams was responsible for “repeat violence” – thus, the repeat violence injunction did not have a legally sufficient basis.

Stalking and Aggravated Stalking in Florida

Stalking and aggravated stalking are serious offenses in Florida that can carry significant legal and financial penalties. Stalking occurs when a person willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person. Florida Statutes Section 784.048(2) regulates the offense of stalking.

If someone has been accused of stalking by harassing the victim, the State must establish that the defendant engaged in a course of conduct directed at the victim that:

• Served no legitimate purpose
• Would cause substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person
• Did cause substantial emotional distress to the victim

If charged criminally, stalking is a first-degree misdemeanor – punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Cyberstalking carries the same criminal penalties as stalking, and occurs when someone does either of the following:

• Engages in a course of conduct to communicate words, images, or language through electronic methods, either directly or indirectly, which is directed at or pertaining to a targeted person; or
• Accesses, or attempts to access, the online account or internet-connected home electronic system without the specified person’s consent and that causes substantial emotional distress to the victim 

Stalking is an enhanceable offense, meaning certain forms of stalking are felonies and carry heavier criminal penalties under Florida law. For example:

• Someone who makes a credible threat to the victim in the course of stalking commits a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine
• Someone who stalks a victim 16 years old or younger commits a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine
• Someone who violates an EXISTING injunction against stalking commits aggravated stalking, a third-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine

Note: A police officer may make a warrantless arrest of anyone they suspect of stalking based on probable cause.

Under Florida law, stalking must be done both willfully and maliciously. “Willfully” is defined as knowingly, intentionally, and purposely. “Maliciously” is defined as wrongfully, intentionally, and without lawful justification or excuse. Seese v. State, 955 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) 

In addition to stalking, there is aggravated stalking. Aggravated stalking includes the elements of stalking, but with the added requirement of making a credible threat to the victim, or violating an injunction for protection against violence. 

Aggravated stalking is a third-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Moreover, under Florida Statutes Section 784.048, a court may issue an order restraining the defendant in an aggravated stalking case from contacting the victim for up to 10 years.

In addition to a criminal charge, someone may be subject to a stalking INJUNCTION. In Florida, an injunction is defined as a court order that is meant to compel a person to engage in – or refrain from engaging in – a particular course of conduct (e.g. to stay away from a person).

There are two broad types of stalking injunctions – temporary injunctions and permanent (final) injunctions. A temporary injunction (also known as an ex parte injunction) can be entered before the respondent (e.g. the party accused of stalking) gets a full hearing. The process proceeds in the following way:

• The petitioner files a verified petition alleging stalking
• The judge reviews the petition – generally, the respondent does not have to be present
• If it appears that stalking exists, the court may issue a temporary injunction pending a full hearing
• Temporary injunctions ordinarily last no more than 15 days
• A full hearing must be scheduled no later than the date of expiration of the temporary injunction
• However, the hearing on the final injunction may be continued (e.g. delayed) for GOOD CAUSE, such as inability to obtain service on the respondent (and a temporary injunction may be extended accordingly)

If a petitioner files for a temporary (ex parte) injunction under state law, there are three possible outcomes:

• The judge DENIES the request for a temporary injunction and DOES NOT schedule a final hearing, as the allegations are legally insufficient for an injunction to issue
• The judge DENIES the request for a temporary injunction on the basis that currently, the evidence is insufficient to support an injunction – but schedules a final hearing where the petitioner and respondent can present evidence to inform the judge’s decision regarding a PERMANENT INJUNCTION
• The judge GRANTS the petition for a temporary injunction and also schedules a hearing on the final injunction request (within 15 days of the temporary injunction’s issuance)

In the event that a final hearing is scheduled, both the petitioner and the respondent will have the opportunity to do the following:

• Testify regarding their allegations/denials of those allegations
• Cross-examine the opposing party regarding their testimony
• Present evidence in the form of witnesses and/or exhibits

It is important to note that the burden of proof is NOT the same at a civil injunction hearing as it is at a criminal trial. The distinction is as follows:

• At a civil injunction proceeding, the petitioner must prove by a PREPONDERANCE of the evidence (e.g. majority of the evidence) that the respondent engaged in conduct that is legally sufficient to support the issuance of an injunction
• At a criminal trial, the State must prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the defendant committed the offense(s) charged by establishing that each and every element of the crime was performed by that defendant (Khan v. Deutschman, 282 So.3d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019))

There are various types of injunctions that may be issued in Florida – depending on the facts of the case. These include:

• Injunction for protection for domestic violence – Under Fla. Stat. 741.30, this may issue if the petitioner and respondent presently reside together, have lived together in the past in an intimate or family relationship, are related by blood/marriage OR share a child
• Injunction for protection from repeat violence – May be issued when a party proves that at least 2 instances of stalking and/or violence have been committed against them by the respondent in the last 6 months and the petitioner/respondent do not have a relationship qualifying them for a domestic violence injunction
• Injunction for protection from dating violence – requires that 1) the dating relationship existed within the last 6 months; 2) the nature of the relationship is characterized by the expectation of affection or sexual involvement between the parties; and 3) the frequency and type of interaction is based on the party’s involvement over time and on a continuous basis during the course of the relationship
• Injunction for sexual violence – requires a victim or parent of a victim to establish that 1) the petitioner has reported the alleged sexual violence to a law enforcement agency and is cooperating in any criminal proceeding against the respondent; and 2) the respondent who committed sexual violence was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in state prison, and the term of imprisonment has expired or is due to expire within 90 days following the date the petition is filed

It is commonly believed that the issuance of a permanent injunction is the “end of the line” for a respondent. However, this isn’t the case. Even a final injunction can be set aside if any one of the following things occur:

• The petitioner moves the court to dissolve the injunction on the basis that circumstances have changed/they are no longer in fear of the respondent (must be done of a petitioner’s OWN FREE WILL, per Green v. Bordiuk, 346 So. 3d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022))
• The respondent petitions the court and argues that there is no longer a legally sufficient basis for the injunction (less common, but may occur after a prolonged period when the circumstances have significantly changed, such as in Hobbs v. Hobbs, 290 So.3d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020))
• A reviewing court (such as a Florida District Court of Appeal) examines the trial judge’s ruling and concludes that there wasn’t a legally sufficient basis for the injunction to issue

In an injunction hearing, there are usually a few commonly debated legal issues – which include the following:

• Whether a respondent’s alleged behavior was willful, malicious, and repeated
• Whether the respondent’s behavior was likely to cause an objectively reasonable person in the petitioner’s shoes to suffer SUBSTANTIAL emotional distress
• Whether the respondent’s behavior had a legitimate (e.g. non-harassment) purpose
• In a repeat violence injunction proceeding, whether there is sufficient evidence that the respondent was responsible for each act of violence

The last of these was key in a major case heard by Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (North FL and Tallahassee’s highest court). There, a petitioner alleged the respondent committed TWO acts of violence against her/her property – specifically, the “keying” of her vehicle.

The trial judge GRANTED the repeat violence injunction against the respondent, despite the fact that there was no testimony at the final hearing to support the claim that the respondent – not any other party – was responsible for the second “keying.”

On appeal, the respondent argued the evidence was INSUFFICIENT as a matter of law to sustain an injunction against repeat violence. He claimed the petitioner was engaged in speculation – and that because there was not competent, substantial evidence to show “repeat violence,” the judge’s decision required REVERSAL.

The 1st DCA AGREED with the respondent and REVERSED the injunction as a matter of law. Let’s look at that case – Williams v. Gonder, 133 So.3d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) – and see what it means for those in Florida involved in injunction proceedings.

KEY CASE: Williams v. Gonder, 133 So.3d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)

In Williams v. Gonder, 133 So.3d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), the petitioner (Gonder) successfully obtained an injunction against repeat violence against Williams. At a final hearing, the following was revealed:

• Gonder claimed that in May of 2013, she walked out one morning and saw Williams by her car
• When she told Williams to get away, he left, but she saw her car was keyed
• Three months later, in August of 2013, Gonder found her car had been keyed once again
• She immediately suspected that Williams had done this to her once more, and pursued a repeat violence injunction
• The injunction was successfully obtained

On appeal to the 1st DCA, Williams made the following arguments in an effort to get the repeat violence injunction set aside:

• The keying of the car did not constitute an act of violence under Florida’s repeat violence injunction statute
• Even if it did, there was insufficient evidence that he engaged in the second act of alleged violence, as Gonder simply discovered her car had been “keyed” 

The 1st DCA AGREED with Williams and SET ASIDE the injunction. Addressing Williams’s first claim, the 1st DCA wrote:

“Section 784.046(2), Florida Statutes (2013), creates a cause of action for an injunction for protection in cases of repeat violence. “Violence” means “any assault, aggravated assault, battery, aggravated battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, stalking, aggravated stalking, kidnapping, or false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death, by a person against any other person.” § 784.046(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Repeat violence means “two incidents of violence or stalking committed by the respondent, one of which must have been within 6 months of the filing of the petition, which are directed against the petitioner or the petitioner’s immediate family member.” § 784.046(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Here, as contemplated by the statute, neither of the alleged acts of “violence” satisfied section 784.046(1)(a). In fact, the only “violence” either of the alleged acts could have come remotely close to satisfying is the “any other criminal offense”, which still would fail because the acts did not result in “physical injury or death.”

The 1st DCA also concluded that there was no competent and substantial evidence to support the claim that Williams was responsible for the second “keying”:

“Furthermore, except for the conclusory assumption made in the petition that Appellant must have keyed Appellee’s car in August 2013, no competent, substantial evidence was presented that Appellant committed the second act at all. … Under the circumstances, the petition was wrongly granted and so we reverse.”

In sum, Williams v. Gonder, 133 So.3d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding repeat violence injunction proceedings. The 1st DCA (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court) held that:

• There was no evidence Williams committed repeat violence against Gonder
• Gonder only proved Williams keyed her car once
• Keying a car does not qualify as an act of violence under the statute 
• As a result, the trial judge ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW by issuing the injunction – requiring reversal

Florida’s legal community should take note of Williams v. Gonder, 133 So.3d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), as it makes clear when there is, and is not, a legally sufficient basis for an injunction to be issued.

If someone is charged with stalking or aggravated stalking, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This vital decision could make the difference in whether or not a person is subject to a lengthy prison term, hefty fines, and more.

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