An appellate court allowed Pierce Hoempler’s prosecution to continue after judges upheld findings that three unarmed victims were moving away from him.
NORTH MIAMI, Fla. — More than a year before a jury convicted Pierce Nelson Hoempler of killing his neighbor and the neighbor’s two sons, Florida judges had already considered and rejected his attempt to end the case under the state’s self-defense immunity law.
That pretrial fight became one of the most consequential legal stages in the prosecution. Hoempler, now 36, maintained that he fired because Hector Rivera and Rivera’s sons, Frank and Jeremy, rushed him during a confrontation at their North Miami apartment complex. A trial judge rejected that account for purposes of immunity, and the Third District Court of Appeal allowed the prosecution to proceed in March 2025. In September 2026, a jury went further, convicting Hoempler of first-degree murder in Hector Rivera’s death and second-degree murder in the killings of Frank and Jeremy Rivera.
Florida law permits deadly force in self-defense under defined circumstances, including when a person reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. A related statute can provide immunity from criminal prosecution when the use of force is legally justified. Hoempler invoked those protections after his arrest, asking the trial court to dismiss the murder case before a jury could consider it. The resulting hearing required the judge to examine the circumstances surrounding the shooting, including witness testimony, medical evidence and Hoempler’s claim about the three men’s actions.
The judge heard evidence over two days. One witness, Andrew Wint, lived next to Hoempler and said he was working on a vehicle when he saw Hector Rivera arrive and confront Hoempler. The two men argued and began fighting. Wint testified that Hoempler eventually straddled Rivera during the struggle. When Rivera’s sons arrived, Wint noticed that Hoempler had a handgun tucked behind him. Frank and Jeremy moved around Hoempler to get to their father, according to the testimony summarized by the appellate court. Rivera then got up from the ground.
Wint described a scene that differed sharply from Hoempler’s later assertion that the men rushed him. He said Hoempler pulled out the handgun and displayed it, after which the Riveras moved away. Wint backed toward his own residence because he was worried about his family. From inside, he heard a rapid burst of gunfire. There was a pause of roughly 30 seconds, he testified, before another shot. Police arriving at the scene found the three victims separated from one another by several yards in the apartment courtyard. Investigators determined all three men were unarmed.
Medical testimony added another layer to the immunity dispute. Associate Medical Examiner Dr. Nicholas Barna testified that the wounds to Frank and Jeremy Rivera could be consistent with the brothers turning their backs as the shooting occurred and then falling after they were injured. Hector Rivera had injuries related to the physical struggle as well as multiple gunshot wounds. The trial judge ultimately found that the physical and testimonial evidence did not establish that the men were advancing on Hoempler at the moment deadly force was used. Hector and Jeremy died at the scene, while Frank died after being transported to a hospital.
The confrontation itself had developed from events shortly before the fight. Laritza Cruz, a close friend of Hector Rivera, testified that she encountered Hoempler while walking home from work. She said he followed her slowly on a bicycle, verbally harassed her and threatened to get a firearm and shoot her. Cruz contacted Rivera afterward. The trial court allowed that testimony for the limited purpose of explaining the sequence of events before the confrontation, not as proof that Hoempler lacked a valid self-defense claim. Rivera’s young grandchildren were with him when he received Cruz’s call and later accompanied him to the apartment complex.
Hoempler called 911 after the gunfire and said three men were down. He told the operator that he had shot them after they rushed him. His lawyers sought to use that call during the immunity proceedings, while prosecutors challenged its use. The trial court ultimately concluded that other evidence showed the victims had not rushed him when he fired. Hoempler then sought appellate intervention, asking the Third District Court of Appeal to prevent further prosecution and challenging evidentiary rulings from the hearing.
The appellate panel denied relief on March 26, 2025. Its decision stressed the standard that appellate judges use in such cases: legal conclusions are reviewed independently, but factual findings supported by competent evidence receive deference. The panel found no legal basis to overturn the trial court’s decision. The opinion noted the lower court’s conclusion that the three Rivera men were at a distance, were turning or moving away and did not pose an imminent threat when the shooting occurred. The appellate ruling did not determine guilt, but it kept the murder charges alive and sent the case back toward trial.
By the time jurors considered the case in 2026, the prosecution had also changed in one important respect. Hoempler had initially faced three second-degree murder counts after his arrest, but the case later included a first-degree murder charge in Hector Rivera’s death. During trial, defense attorney Carlos Gonzalez continued to argue that Hoempler acted in self-defense. Prosecutors emphasized that the Riveras were unarmed and pointed jurors toward evidence indicating that at least two of the victims had turned away. The jury convicted Hoempler on all three killings.
Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle said after the verdict that the deaths were especially devastating because Frank Rivera’s two young sons were present, losing their father, uncle and grandfather at once. The office credited Felony Division Chief Elizabeth Utset and Assistant State Attorney Casey Hughes with securing the verdict. The prosecution’s statement focused on the family’s loss and the hope that the jury’s decision could provide some closure after years of criminal proceedings.
Hoempler’s case is now moving from the questions of justification and guilt to punishment. He faces up to three life sentences. Court reporting states that a hearing is scheduled for Oct. 23 to set a sentencing date. That distinction is significant because the hearing itself has sometimes been described more broadly as the sentencing date. As of Oct. 21, no final sentence has been reported. The jury’s verdicts therefore stand as the latest completed legal action in a case shaped as much by the failed self-defense claim as by the confrontation that first brought police to the North Miami courtyard.
Author note: Last updated October 21, 2026.