Seminole County · Case No. 2023-CF · F.S. 784.045(1)(a) — Aggravated Battery
| Defendant | Marquis Anthony Delcampo, 34 |
| Charge | Aggravated Battery — F.S. 784.045(1)(a) |
| Classification | Second-Degree Felony |
| Statutory Maximum | 15 years — F.S. 775.082(3)(d) |
| Sentence Imposed | 20 years (PRR / HFO enhanced) |
| Sentencing Judge | Circuit Judge Jessica Reckseidler |
| Prosecutors | ASA Domenick Leo & ASA Martine McCarthy |
| State Attorney | William Scheiner — 18th Judicial Circuit |
| Jurisdiction | 18th Judicial Circuit — Seminole County, FL |
| SCSO Report | #202300001348 · Event #20230530827 |
| Arrest Warrant | #23912CFA |
| Listed Victim | Jovanny Mercado Guzman, Uber driver (age 50 at incident) |
| Appeal Deadline | May 10, 2026 |
Under Florida Statute 775.082(3)(d), a second-degree felony carries a maximum sentence of 15 years imprisonment. The sentence imposed in this case is 20 years — exceeding the statutory maximum by 5 years. The State used Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) and Habitual Felony Offender (HFO) enhancements to reach this figure. Whether those enhancements were properly charged, proven, and applied is under review.
Rule 3.800(a) has no time limitation — it may be filed at any time during the sentence.
Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) — Mandatory minimum 15 years, no gain time. Applied because the battery was committed within three years of Marquis’s release from prison.
Habitual Felony Offender (HFO) — Gives the court discretion to double the maximum to 30 years. Judge Reckseidler imposed 20 years.
An altercation occurred during an Uber ride with a female passenger also in the vehicle. The driver first stopped at a Wawa convenience store to drop off the female passenger, then drove erratically through the parking lot — exiting through an entrance-only lane and running a red light — while Marquis begged to be let out. A language barrier between Marquis and the Spanish-speaking driver made communication difficult throughout.
The driver eventually stopped near Plaza Band’s Mexican Restaurant (the prosecution calls this the ride “conclusion”). What followed, per Marquis’s notarized sworn statement: the driver opened the door and attempted to forcibly remove Marquis, blocked his path, made unwanted physical contact, then attempted a takedown maneuver. When that failed, the driver returned to the vehicle, searched for a weapon, and came back wielding an umbrella aggressively. Marquis held the car door because he was in shock and his belongings were still inside. The full sequence is captured across at least two video sources — a bystander’s phone video and nearby business CCTV — neither of which has been made available to the defense in unedited form.
SCSO investigators conducted a photo lineup (Spanish-language) and contacted Uber via the LE Portal (Request #00336376). The driver identified image #2 as the passenger. Uber confirmed the ride was linked to Marquis. No arrest was made at scene; investigation continued for over two months.
Marquis was arrested 72 days after the incident pursuant to warrant #23912CFA. Booking ID #202300004473. Bond set at $2,000. The delayed arrest raises questions about the speed and thoroughness of the initial investigation.
Case processed through the 18th Judicial Circuit. Defense counsel was assigned. A Stand Your Ground motion was filed and denied. The adequacy of defense investigation, evidence review, and plea negotiation strategy during this period is under review.
A Seminole County jury found Marquis guilty. Prosecutors Leo and McCarthy presented phone video, business CCTV, Uber records, eyewitness testimony, and medical records showing the driver’s broken nose and fractured jawbone. In a second trial phase, the jury also found Marquis qualified for PRR and HFO sentencing enhancements based on his criminal history.
Circuit Judge Jessica Reckseidler sentenced Marquis to 20 years in the Department of Corrections. With PRR status, there is no gain time — every day of the 20 years must be served. The sentence exceeds the standard 15-year statutory maximum for a second-degree felony, authorized only by the HFO enhancement.
Unykorn Law platform launched. AI-powered agents deployed for case research, evidence analysis, and attorney identification. Full OSINT gathering initiated. SCSO records request prepared. Video evidence strategy developed.
Critical deadline for filing a direct appeal with the Fifth District Court of Appeal. All preparations for appellate briefing must be completed before this date.
Our Legal Pool agents have identified multiple avenues for post-conviction relief, listed in order of immediacy and strength.
The 20-year sentence exceeds the 15-year statutory maximum for a second-degree felony. Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), a motion to correct an illegal sentence may be filed at any time and presents a strong basis for immediate relief.
HIGHEST PRIORITYA direct appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeal can raise issues of trial error, evidentiary sufficiency, sentencing legality, and procedural violations. Deadline: May 10, 2026.
TIME-SENSITIVEMultiple potential IAC claims: (1) Failure to call a corroborating eyewitness identified by the defendant’s family. (2) Failure to adequately review or present the full, unedited video evidence showing driver provocation. (3) Possible failure to file or properly pursue a Stand Your Ground immunity motion. (4) Failure to communicate or negotiate plea offers, if any were extended.
POST-CONVICTIONAt least two video sources exist: a bystander’s phone recording and nearby business CCTV. The defendant’s mother states the “extended video” shows the truth of what happened. Whether defense counsel obtained, reviewed, and presented the full unedited footage — or whether the State disclosed it in complete form — is a critical question.
EVIDENTIARYThe SA18 press release claims this defense was “tried unsuccessfully.” The defendant’s mother says it was never applied. If no SYG hearing occurred, the failure to pursue immunity from prosecution is itself an IAC claim. If a hearing did occur, the ruling and transcript must be reviewed for adequacy.
DISPUTEDEven if the sentence is subsequently recalculated within statutory bounds, it may still constitute cruel and unusual punishment when compared to sentences in similar cases, given the defendant's circumstances and the nature of the offense.
CONSTITUTIONALThe Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet used for sentencing must be reviewed for computational errors, improperly scored victim injury points, prior record miscalculations, or other arithmetic issues that inflated the guidelines range.
SENTENCINGLisa Smith, Marquis’s mother, responded publicly on the State Attorney’s Facebook post announcing her son’s sentencing. Her words speak for themselves.
“My son was provoked and a woman witnessed the whole thing, it was clearly a self-defense case but the PD didn’t give her a chance to speak on the stand as a witness. Those of you who have seen the extended video know the truth. That Uber driver went far left and was driving wrecklessly [sic] as my son begged to be let go; then the uber driver physically provoked him, furthermore the defense did NOT apply the stand-your-ground law to his case.”
— Lisa Smith, commenting on the SA18 Facebook announcement, February 2026
Lisa Smith states a woman witnessed the entire incident and could corroborate the defense’s account — but the public defender “didn’t give her a chance to speak on the stand.” Marquis’s own notarized sworn statement confirms a female passenger was in the vehicle during the ride, scheduled to exit at the Wawa stop. This corroborating witness has never been identified or called. If this witness was known to counsel and not called, it raises a serious ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington.
“Those of you who have seen the extended video know the truth.” Lisa confirms what the case file suggests: more video exists than was presented at trial. The full, unedited footage may show the driver initiating physical contact and arming himself, which the prosecution narrative omits entirely.
Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute (F.S. 776.032) provides immunity from prosecution when a person uses force in self-defense. Lisa Smith confirms the defense “did NOT apply the stand-your-ground law.” The SA18 press release claims it was “tried unsuccessfully,” but Lisa — as the defendant’s mother and close observer of the case — says otherwise. This contradiction must be resolved.
Both Marquis’s sworn statement and his mother’s account agree: the Uber driver drove erratically, went to the wrong location, and then physically provoked Marquis after stopping. The prosecution narrative — that the driver “stopped his SUV, opened the rear door, and motioned” for the passenger to exit — makes it sound peaceful. The defense account describes a very different scenario.
Marquis Delcampo provided a voluntary sworn statement regarding the events of February 22, 2023. The document was notarized by Christina McElyea (FL Commission # HH 131329) and Lisa Smith was authorized to serve it on his behalf. Below is the sequence of events as described under oath.
Source: Notarized sworn statement, SCSO Case #202300001348. Marquis stated he “wish[es] to prosecute the individual(s) responsible” — referring to the driver.
The State Attorney’s press releases tell one side. The sworn statements, witness accounts, and full video tell another. Here are the facts the prosecution’s narrative leaves out.
Marquis’s notarized sworn statement identifies Plaza Band’s Mexican Restaurant as the location where the driver stopped — not the requested destination. Before that, there was an additional stop at a Wawa convenience store to drop off a female passenger. The prosecution’s press release simply says the ride “concluded” — implying everything was orderly. It wasn’t.
According to the defense account, the driver was driving erratically and ran a red light while Marquis begged to be let out of the vehicle. This context — a passenger in fear for his safety — is absent from the State’s version.
The prosecution says the driver “stepped out and attempted to physically remove” Marquis. Marquis’s sworn statement describes a far more aggressive sequence: the driver opened the door, attempted forcible removal, blocked Marquis’s path, made unwanted physical contact, and then attempted a takedown maneuver. Only after the takedown failed did the driver retreat to the car and return armed with an umbrella. If the driver initiated physical contact, Marquis had a legal right to defend himself under Florida law.
Marquis’s sworn statement describes the driver grabbing an umbrella and using it as a weapon. The prosecution press release makes no mention of this at all. If the driver armed himself, the self-defense calculus changes completely.
The defense account indicates Marquis’s personal belongings were still in the car when the altercation began. This detail explains why Marquis did not simply walk away — his property was being held by someone who was acting erratically.
The SA18 press release states the incident occurred at “about 8:50 a.m.” Marquis’s own sworn statement records the time as approximately 7:02 AM — nearly two hours earlier. A discrepancy this large in the prosecution’s public narrative warrants scrutiny of the underlying timeline evidence.
Marquis’s sworn statement describes a language barrier between himself and the driver, Jovanny Mercado Guzman. The inability to communicate effectively during an already stressful ride — wrong stops, erratic driving — is critical context the prosecution never mentions. Miscommunication may have escalated what could have been a simple misunderstanding.
Both Marquis’s sworn statement and his mother Lisa Smith confirm a female passenger was in the vehicle during the ride. She was dropped at the Wawa stop before the incident. This unnamed woman could corroborate the erratic driving, wrong location, and the driver’s behavior. She has apparently never been identified, located, or called as a witness by either side.
CRITICAL MISSING WITNESSBefore grabbing the umbrella, the driver attempted a physical takedown maneuver on Marquis. This detail from the sworn statement is entirely absent from the prosecution’s narrative. The sequence — forced removal, physical blocking, unwanted contact, takedown attempt, weapon retrieval — paints a picture of escalating aggression by the driver, not the passenger.
Ten documented contradictions between the State’s official narrative and the sworn evidence. Every source is publicly available. Every discrepancy is verifiable.
| # | What the Prosecution Says | What the Evidence Shows | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | “The ride had concluded” | Driver stopped at a Wawa convenience store first (not the destination), then drove erratically to the restaurant area. Marquis paid for a complete ride. Uber contract was not fulfilled. | If ride not complete, driver had no right to force exit. Marquis had contractual right to remain in vehicle. Driver was in breach. |
| 2 | “He got out and started punching” — implies unprovoked attack | Driver FIRST: stopped, exited, opened door, reached in, attempted forcible removal, blocked path, attempted takedown, returned with umbrella. Punching came AFTER driver’s multi-step assault. | Prosecution skips everything between “motioned to exit” and “started punching.” That gap is where the self-defense case lives. |
| 3 | Location: “East State Road 436 in Casselberry” | Destination: Plaza Band’s / Pablano Mexican Restaurant, 1370 E Altamonte Dr, Altamonte Springs | Different municipalities cited for the same corridor. Uber GPS data will resolve whether the stop was at the entered destination or a different location. |
| 4 | Incident time: “about 8:50 a.m.” (SA18) | Sworn statement: approximately 7:02 AM | Nearly two-hour discrepancy. Impacts camera footage windows, witness availability, and foundational report reliability. |
| 5 | Video showed “beating” | Phone video likely started mid-fight (bystanders record after noticing disturbance). An estimated 60–120 seconds of driver provocation occurred before recording began. Business CCTV should show the full sequence. | Prosecution showed only the defensive response. The initiation and provocation by the driver were either not shown or not obtained. Classic presentation bias. |
| 6 | Driver injuries documented: “broken nose, fractured jawbone” | Marquis’s injuries from takedown attempt and umbrella attack: not documented, not presented | One-sided medical narrative. Injuries prove force was used — not who started it. Self-defense results in injuries to aggressors. |
| 7 | No mention of driver’s erratic driving, wrong-way exit, or red light | Sworn statement: driver sped through Wawa lot, exited through entrance-only lane, ran red light, drove recklessly to Plaza Band’s lot | Driver committed reckless driving (F.S. 316.192) and multiple traffic violations BEFORE the confrontation. Entirely absent from official narrative. |
| 8 | No mention of umbrella used as weapon | Driver returned to vehicle, retrieved umbrella, wielded it aggressively against Marquis | Under F.S. 784.021, this constitutes aggravated assault with a weapon — by the driver. Under F.S. 776.041(2)(a), this restores self-defense rights even if Marquis were deemed the initial aggressor. |
| 9 | SYG was “tried unsuccessfully” (SA18) | Lisa Smith: “the defense did NOT apply the stand-your-ground law” | Direct contradiction from the defendant’s own family. If no SYG hearing occurred, SA18’s public claim is false and the failure to pursue immunity = IAC under Strickland. |
| 10 | Bond set at $2,000 at arrest | Sentence imposed: 20 years | The magistrate assessed low danger. The prosecution then maximized to 20 years — exceeding the 15-year statutory cap via stacked enhancements. |
These are not allegations. They are documented discrepancies between the State Attorney’s own press releases, the SCSO report, the notarized sworn statement, and the known evidence inventory. The prosecution’s narrative omits the driver’s erratic driving, physical initiation, takedown attempt, armed assault with an umbrella, a female eyewitness, and a nearly two-hour time discrepancy. A jury that heard the full truth — not a curated version — may well have reached a different verdict.
The prosecution tells the story in 7 steps. The sworn statement tells it in 18. What’s missing from the prosecution’s version is the entire sequence of driver aggression that preceded Marquis’s defensive response.
The prosecution jumps from a verbal argument to “started punching.” Steps 5 through 7 skip everything the driver did physically: the forced removal attempt, the blocking, the takedown, and the umbrella. The jury heard a story with the middle torn out.
In every phase of this confrontation, the driver was the initiator and escalator. He stopped the car. He got out. He opened the door. He reached in. He attempted a takedown. He armed himself. He came back with a weapon. Marquis’s only actions were verbal protest, attempted compliance, and physical defense when assaulted. The prosecution presents Step 13 and Step 17 (Marquis defending himself) while erasing Steps 1–12 and 14–16 (the driver’s escalating aggression that caused them).
The Uber ride was pre-paid with a specific destination. What happened between pickup and incident tells the whole story.
Marquis and a female passenger board. Pre-paid Uber ride to designated destination.
Female passenger requests a stop and exits. Driver becomes visibly impatient during wait. Marquis exits to look for the passenger, returns. Driver begins gesturing aggressively.
Driver departs erratically. Exits through entrance-only lane. Runs a red light. Speeds through parking lots. Marquis begs to be let out. The distance between the Wawa and Plaza Band’s is along the SR 436 / East Altamonte Drive corridor — the same road under different municipal names.
Vehicle stops. Driver exits, opens rear door, and physically initiates the confrontation that leads to Marquis’s arrest — and ultimately, a 20-year sentence.
Uber records GPS coordinates every few seconds during every trip. This data will prove or disprove:
Any measurable deviation from the entered destination becomes significant if it was not required by traffic safety, was not rider-approved, and altered the circumstances of the exit or confrontation. These are not facts that require guesswork — they are recorded in Uber’s own systems.
SR 436 = Semoran Boulevard = East Altamonte Drive in this corridor. The prosecution says “East State Road 436 in Casselberry”; the sworn statement says “1370 E Altamonte Dr, Altamonte Springs.” This is the same road, but the different municipality names suggest the driver’s actual stop may not have been at the GPS destination. Uber’s data is the tiebreaker.
Independent of the criminal appeal, the facts support a civil action against both the driver and Uber Technologies. Here is what the driver breached and why Uber is responsible.
| Duty | Standard | Breached | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Safe transport to destination | Common carrier / TNC contract | YES | Ride not completed. Driver ejected passenger before destination. Physical assault during active trip. |
| Obey traffic laws | State law + Uber policy | YES | Entrance-only exit, ran red light, erratic driving through parking lots with pedestrians present. |
| No forced passenger ejection | Uber policy / common carrier duty | YES | Driver opened door, physically attempted to remove paying passenger who had not reached destination. |
| No physical force against passengers | Law + Uber policy | YES | Takedown attempt, physical blocking, unwanted contact, umbrella wielded as weapon. |
| Accurate route adherence | Uber policy | YES | Unauthorized Wawa deviation from app-designated route. Erratic driving sequence. |
The incident occurred during an active, pre-paid Uber trip. The driver was operating within the scope of platform engagement. Uber exercised control over route, pricing, and conduct standards. Under respondeat superior, Uber bears responsibility for the driver’s actions during the trip.
Uber’s platform has GPS tracking, route monitoring, and safety systems. Despite the driver deviating from the route, driving erratically, and stopping at unauthorized locations, no safety intervention was triggered. No passenger alert. No real-time monitoring response.
Uber’s Terms of Service promise safe rides with GPS tracking and community guidelines. The driver violated every term: unsafe driving, route deviation, physical violence, forced ejection. This constitutes breach of the implied warranty of safe transportation under Florida common carrier doctrine.
Marquis’s personal belongings were still in the vehicle when the driver demanded he exit. The driver later went back to retrieve them. This proves: (1) the exit was forced and premature, (2) the driver knew belongings were there, (3) Marquis had a legitimate reason not to simply walk away. Under F.S. 812.014, the driver’s retention of Marquis’s property constitutes potential conversion.
As a direct result of the driver’s conduct during an active Uber ride, Marquis was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Potential civil damages include: loss of liberty, lost wages and earning capacity, emotional distress, physical injuries (from the driver’s assault), reputational harm, family separation, and punitive damages for Uber’s failure to prevent foreseeable harm by its platform driver.
Marquis has been represented by four different public defenders. Not one of them investigated the facts that are documented on this page. Under Strickland v. Washington (1984), counsel has a duty to investigate — and a failure to do so constitutes ineffective assistance when it prejudices the outcome.
A woman was in the vehicle during the ride. She witnessed the driver’s behavior, the Wawa stop, and the erratic driving. She could corroborate every element of the defense. Lisa Smith confirmed her existence. Marquis’s sworn statement confirms her existence. No attorney ever identified, located, or called her.
IAC — FAILURE TO INVESTIGATEUber records GPS coordinates every few seconds. This data would prove the route deviation, the unauthorized Wawa stop, the driver’s speed, and whether the entered destination was reached. The data exists. The SCSO contacted Uber’s LE Portal on 2/23/2023. No defense attorney ever obtained or analyzed the full trip telemetry.
IAC — FAILURE TO INVESTIGATEVideo surveillance from a nearby business was referenced by the State at trial. This CCTV should show the complete sequence: the driver arriving, exiting, opening the door, initiating contact, retrieving the umbrella. If the full CCTV was not obtained or presented by defense — or if the prosecution only showed selected portions — that is a Brady / IAC issue.
IAC + POTENTIAL BRADYThe photo lineup was conducted exclusively in Spanish on 2/23/2023. Under Neil v. Biggers, the reliability of an identification depends on opportunity to view, degree of attention, accuracy of prior description, level of certainty, and time elapsed. A lineup conducted in a single foreign language raises suggestiveness and comprehension concerns. No attorney challenged it.
IAC — FAILURE TO CHALLENGEThe facts are textbook Stand Your Ground: Marquis was a passenger in an occupied vehicle. The driver was unlawfully and forcibly removing him. F.S. 776.013 provides a presumption of reasonable fear. Immunity would have meant dismissal with prejudice. Lisa Smith says the defense never applied it. The SA18 says it was “tried unsuccessfully.” Either way, the record suggests this was inadequately investigated and presented.
IAC — FAILURE TO PURSUE IMMUNITYWas Jovanny Mercado Guzman ever the subject of prior Uber complaints? Did he have a history of aggressive behavior with passengers? Was he deactivated after this incident? These records exist within Uber’s systems and are discoverable. A pattern of aggression by the driver would be devastating to the prosecution. No attorney ever asked.
IAC — FAILURE TO INVESTIGATEUnder Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), a defendant must show: (1) counsel’s performance was deficient — falling below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) the deficiency prejudiced the defense — there is a reasonable probability the result would have been different. When counsel fails to investigate witnesses who are known to exist, fails to obtain available evidence, and fails to pursue the strongest available defense, both prongs are met. Four attorneys had four chances to find these facts. None did. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 allows these claims to be raised in post-conviction proceedings.
The State Attorney emphasized Marquis’s criminal history in both press releases. The public comments on Facebook reference his past. But the law does not work that way.
F.S. 776.012 (Use of Force in Defense of Person) applies to all persons. There is no exception for people with criminal records. The statute says “a person” — not “a person without prior convictions.”
F.S. 776.032 (Stand Your Ground Immunity) contains no prior-record disqualifier. A person with five felonies has the same right to immunity from prosecution as a person with zero.
F.S. 776.013 (Occupied Vehicle / Castle Doctrine) provides a presumption of reasonable fear when someone is being forcibly removed from an occupied vehicle. This presumption applies regardless of criminal history.
The right to defend your own life does not have a prior-conviction exception. Facts are facts. The law is the law.
Prior convictions are legally relevant in narrow, specific contexts:
Prior convictions are NOT relevant to:
Every day Marquis has spent in jail — from his arrest in May 2023 to the present — was time served under a prosecution built on an incomplete investigation, an omission-filled narrative, and representation by four attorneys who each failed to present the facts documented here. Prior arrests do not negate due process. Prior convictions do not cancel the right to a fair trial. And past mistakes do not mean that this time, the system got it right.
All information below is sourced from publicly available records: the State Attorney’s own press releases, public social-media posts, and court documents.
Per the SA18 press release (January 27, 2026), the State presented:
Whether the defense had adequate access to all of this evidence in unredacted, unedited form — and whether it was competently reviewed — is under investigation.
Among the public comments on the State Attorney’s Facebook announcement, one user asked: “Were any plea deals offered? Just curious about the legal process.” This raises a critical question. If plea offers were made and rejected (or never communicated to the defendant), it goes directly to effective assistance of counsel.
The State Attorney’s press release states: “The defendant tried unsuccessfully to use the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law as a defense.”
Lisa Smith, the defendant’s mother, directly contradicts this: “The defense did NOT apply the stand-your-ground law to his case.”
This contradiction is significant. If the Stand Your Ground motion was filed, there should be a hearing transcript and ruling. If it was not filed, the SA18 statement may be inaccurate, and the failure to pursue this defense is a potential IAC claim.
| Judge | Jessica Reckseidler |
| Prosecutors | ASA Domenick Leo, ASA Martine McCarthy |
| State Attorney | William Scheiner (SA18) |
| Victim | Jovanny Mercado Guzman (Uber driver, age 50) |
| Defendant’s Mother | Lisa Smith (publicly identified, authorized to serve sworn statement) |
| Bystander Witness | Hilton A. Rodriguez (phone video) |
| Female Passenger | UNIDENTIFIED — present in vehicle, exited at Wawa |
| Notary (Sworn Statement) | Christina McElyea (Commission # HH 131329) |
| Investigating Agency | Seminole County Sheriff’s Office |
A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery: (a) Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement.
Classification: Second-degree felony under F.S. 784.045(2)
A person who has been convicted of a felony of the second degree... may be punished by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 15 years.
This is the maximum sentence the court was authorized to impose absent any sentencing enhancement.
Florida's sentencing enhancement statutes (10-20-Life, PRR, HFO) can authorize sentences above the standard statutory maximum. However, any enhancement must be:
Analysis pending: Whether any enhancement was properly charged, proven, and applied in this case.
A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it... A sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum... or is otherwise not authorized by law is an illegal sentence.
No time limitation. May be filed at any point during the sentence.
A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force.
If properly raised and proven, this statute provides complete immunity — not just an affirmative defense. Whether this immunity was ever properly invoked in Marquis’s case is disputed.
If you are a licensed Florida Bar attorney with experience in post-conviction relief, appellate practice, or criminal defense, we welcome your professional involvement. Our complete case files, evidence inventories, and legal research are organized and ready for review.
Contact UsRegister for case updates to stay informed on developments. Share factual case information within your networks. Connect us with criminal justice reform organizations and advocacy groups in the Seminole County area.
Register for UpdatesWe provide comprehensive, documented, and source-verified case information to credentialed journalists and documentary producers. All materials include proper disclosures and attribution.
Media InquiriesAll case information presented on this page is derived from public records, court filings, and sworn statements. This page is maintained by Unykorn Law, a criminal justice advocacy organization — not a law firm. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created. The defendant's name is used in connection with publicly available court records. All statements are presented for advocacy and public awareness purposes and are believed to be true and accurate based on available evidence. If you are aware of any factual inaccuracy, please contact us immediately at kevan@unykorn.org. Full disclosures →