The judge set the date of sentencing for October 10. Drake faces up to 30 years in prison.
Drake, who did not take the position of the witness, tried unsuccessfully to use Florida law to "defend the earth" as a defense to justifiable murder. The case reopened a nationwide debate on the law at issue.
The jury's deliberations lasted about six hours, with a brief pause at about 9:30 pm, when the jurors asked for clarification on the instructions for deciding guilt or innocence.
The judge sent the jurors back to the conference room after reading the instructions to them, and about half an hour later the jury announced that there was a decision.
The McGlotton family have been weeping since the sentence. Drake had no reaction at first, but then started wiping his face while the judge spoke before the jurors.
Defense attorneys closed their case earlier in the day after two expert witnesses testified about the defendant's state of mind and his actions during the controversial bell.
Later, the court instructed the jurors on the law before concluding the arguments in which prosecutors referred Drake as an armed vigilante and the defenders described him as a victim who feared for his life.
Prosecutor Fred Schaub quietly told the McLacton family before closing, "I bet you never thought that day would come."
In his conclusion to the State, Scott Rosenwasser called on the jury to ask whether the defendant was justified in shooting an unarmed man who, in his view, was trying to protect his family and withdraw when he was killed.
He called the shooting deliberate, saying Drake was not facing immediate bodily harm or death and that he had taken "the most perfect shot he could make."
Rosenwasser said the case was "cut and dry, the killing of a man who went out to protect his girlfriend from self-proclaimed "vigilante parking" with a "pet" on the application of handicap parking rules.
Rosenwasser reminded the jury that Drake had admitted to police that there would be no reason to shoot if the victim retired.
"The defendant himself tells you that this is a murder," the prosecutor said. "Do you know what Marquis MacLacton is guilty of? He is guilty of loving and trying to protect his family and he died because of it.
The families of McGlocton and his girlfriend were not in the courtroom to close down the defense team, delivered by John Trevena, who said his client was thrown to the ground and would have been "beaten to the pulp" if he had not stood firm on his ground in front of a younger and bigger aggressor.
being alive is the most basic right, "he said.
Drake is not the vigilant role represented by the prosecution , and a man who believed he was in mortal danger, said Trevena.
"Mr Drake thought the danger was real," he argues. "This big man pushed him to the ground. The threat was real. "
If Drake had not withdrawn his weapon, he could have died, the defense attorney said.
" He had the right to stand his ground and no obligation to back down, "Trevena told jurors. [1
"The game has changed when pulling the gun. … Then the game is over, "he said.
On Thursday, a video of the defendant's police interview, including Drake's July 19, 2018, filming in Clearwater, was played in court.
His lawyer maintained that the murder was self-defense after Drake was threatened and then thrown to the ground.
After shooting McGlocton, Drake told police he only fired after the man hit him and ran at him
But CCTV shows that McGlocton is taking a few steps back in the moments before the fa vidual shot – a point at which the police caused Drake.
"What if I told you that I've seen the video and time point and he ran towards you? In fact, he's taking a step back, "Det. Richard Redman asked Drake on the day of the shooting.
" I wouldn't agree, "Drake replied.
The prosecution closed its case on Thursday after two days of testimony.
The incident begins when Drake collides and starts yelling at McClacton's girlfriend, Brittany Jacobs, who was parked with two of her children in a wheelchair accessible location outside the Circle A grocery store. As their argument escalated, MacLacton came from the store and threw Drake to the ground.
Drake pulled out his gun and fired at McGlocton, who had taken a few steps back, the surveillance video shows.
In opening statements, defense lawyer Bryant Camareno claims that Drake's comments to police were simply his best memory and shows his perceptions is at that time.
"He does not lie; he remembered the best he could with the impact it endured, "Camareno
"What else should I expect?"
Drake's lawyers no longer dispute that he should be immunized against prosecution because you "stand your ground." He mentioned this at the end of his interview with the police.
"(It is not clear) 'stay on the ground' and I did exactly what I thought I should have done at that time, given what was happening to me," he says on the tape.
In an interview with police, Drake went down to recover the fatal shooting. He said he was pushed to the side and thought McGlocton would kick and beat him.
"If he was going to hit me so hard in the beginning, the blind side of the boarding, what else should I do? I expect? "
The police asked him several times about the discrepancy between the video and his statements that McGlocton had taken steps towards it.
" That's exactly what I saw, "Drake insisted.
He also said he fired only one shot to "neutralize" what he sees as a threat.
"I'm shooting to save my own ass, and that's it," Drake said in an interview.
McGlockton had MDMA in his system
Thursday also provided testimony from a police force use expert and pathologist examining McGlockton.
In his police interview, Drake mentioned the 21-foot rule – the general idea that a suspect within 21 feet can attack an officer faster than an officer can pull a weapon and fire. But Roy Dedary, a police coach, testifies that the rule does not mean you can shoot anyone within 21 feet.
The forensic pathologist testified that McGlocton had MDMA, also known as ecstasy, in his system when he died.
Bruce Goldberger, a prosecutorial expert on toxicology, stated that MDMA is a social medicine and causes empathy and euphoria. He testified that he did not provoke aggression or impulsivity.
Defense witness Daniel Buffington, an expert in clinical toxicology, stated that the amount of MDMA detected in McGlocton's body was "significantly greater" than in the clinical setting.
Buffington, associate professor at the Department of Pharmacy at the University of South Florida, said the drug caused confusion and aggression and had adverse effects on how McGlocton acted.
Rosenwasser tried to challenge Buffington's opinion of MDMA during the cross-examination. He asked if Buffington would agree that euphoria was one of the most common results.
"Yes, followed by depression and other neurobiological side effects," Buffington says.
Rossenswasser cited an article that Buffington used as a basis for his opinion, which said that the drug most often euphoria and empathy.
"I'm not saying these don't happen. I say there is no foreseeability that this will be the result you achieve, "Buffington said. CNN's John Quells reports from Clearwater, and Steve Almassi and Ray Sanchez write from Atlanta and New York, respectively. CNN's Eric Levenson and CNN's Darran Simon contributed to this report.