In his petition for writ of prohibition, Petitioner challenges the trial courts Order Denying Defendants Claim of Immunity Pursuant to Sections 776.032(1), (4), Florida Statutes. Because competent, substantial evidence supports the trial courts determination that the State presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome Petitioners self-defense claim, we deny the prohibition petition on the merits. See Gainey v. State, 292 So. 3d 1287, 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (denying the prohibition petition because competent, substantial evidence supported the trial courts determination that the State presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome the petitioners self-defense claim); Craven v. State, 285 So. 3d 992, 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“Because the State met its burden by presenting clear and convincing evidence that a reasonable person in Petitioners position would not have used the same force as Petitioner, the trial courts findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence.”).
Denied on the merits.
Per Curiam.
Lewis, Makar, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.