force and does not have a duty to retreat if [h]e ... reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself .. or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony” (emphasis added), and this court held in Garrett v. State, 148 So.3d 466, 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), that “[t]he fact that [the defendant] was a convicted felon in unlawful possession of a firearm did not apply to the jury’s consideration of whether [he] had a duty to retreat under section 776.012(1).” Accord Dorsey v. State, 149 So.3d 144, 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (Dorsey II); Rios v. State, 143 So.3d 1167, 1169-70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Hardison v. State, 138 So.3d 1130, 1134 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); see also Hill v. State, 143 So.3d 981, 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Little v. State, 111 So.3d 214, 219-22 (Fla.
holding that the defense provided in section 7760121 is available to persons engaged in an unlawful activity and explaining that the addition of the words and does not have a duty to retreat to section 776012 had the effect of abrogating the common law duty to retreat before using deadly force outside the home under the circumstances indicated therein holding that the application of section 776012 is not limited to persons not engaged in unlawful activity holding it was fundamental error to instruct the jury using the pre2005 duty to retreat instruction when the incident occurred after the enactment of the current stand your ground law holding the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that defendant claiming selfdefense had no duty to retreat holding that defendant need not establish that he was not engaged in unlawful activity under section 776012