Raulerson v. State of Florida

Summary

The Florida First District Court of Appeal denied Roger Dale Raulerson’s petition for a writ of prohibition challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss based on self-defense immunity under section 776.032(1), Florida Statutes. The court held that Raulerson failed to show clearly and conclusively that he had an objectively reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary when he shot into the victims’ vehicle. A concurring opinion argued that prohibition must remain narrowly limited to preventing a trial court from exceeding its jurisdiction and should not function as direct appellate review.

Holdings

1. Prohibition may be used by a criminal defendant to seek immediate relief from a denial of a statutory self-defense-immunity claim, but it is an extraordinary preventive writ and is not a substitute for an appeal or a vehicle for correcting ordinary legal or factual errors.
2. Raulerson was not entitled to prohibition because he failed to show clearly and conclusively that he had an objectively reasonable belief that firing deadly force into the vehicle was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

Questions Presented

1. Whether prohibition was an appropriate remedy to challenge the circuit court's denial of a criminal defendant's motion for statutory self-defense immunity.
2. Whether Raulerson clearly and conclusively established that he had an objectively reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm when he fired at the departing vehicle.
3. Whether the disputed testimonial and physical evidence concerning the vehicle's movement and Raulerson's position prevented a showing that the trial court was acting beyond its jurisdiction.

Disposition

writ_denied