In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190 · No. SC2024-0839 (Fla.) · Decided October 1, 2026
More analysis may follow as additional information is received and reviewed. Sign up for alerts.
A criminal defendant in Florida who moves to dismiss a charge on the ground that the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt must once again swear to the motion. The Florida Supreme Court restored that requirement on October 1, 2026, less than three months after a rewritten version of the rule took effect without it. The change is effective immediately.
How the Oath Requirement Was Dropped
The Criminal Court Steering Committee proposed amendments to Rule 3.190, which governs pretrial motions, in response to a Fourth District decision about when a motion to dismiss based on “stand your ground” immunity under section 776.032 may be filed. In Acostafigueroa v. State, 373 So. 3d 908, 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), the Fourth District said that “a motion to dismiss claiming self-defense immunity from prosecution may be entertained at any time before trial pursuant to rule 3.190(c)(3).”
On October 30, 2025, the Court rewrote the rule, effective July 13, 2026. Under the rewritten rule, a motion to dismiss must be filed by the deadline the trial court sets, or the court must dismiss it unless the defendant shows good cause for the delay or the motion rests on fundamental grounds. The Court also combined the subdivisions on motions to suppress evidence and motions to suppress statements, clarified the requirements for depositions to perpetuate testimony, and rewrote the subdivision on motions to expedite.
The familiar motion to dismiss for lack of a prima facie case — commonly called a “(c)(4) motion” in Florida appellate opinions — moved to subdivision (d)(2). The former rule said the facts on which such a motion is based “should be alleged specifically and the motion sworn to.” The October 2025 version left that sentence out. The Court also declined the Committee’s proposal to require sworn facts for all motions to dismiss, and it added a requirement that any traverse or demurrer be filed at least two days before a hearing on the motion.
Because the version of subdivision (d) the Court adopted differed from the one published for comment, the Court opened a new comment period and specifically invited comment on “removing the long-standing requirement of a defendant swearing to a motion to dismiss under what was formerly subdivision (c)(4) but is now subdivision (d)(2).”
What the Court Did Now
The Court received seven comments. After considering them, it amended subdivision (d)(2) “to keep the swearing requirement.” The rule now reads, in part:
“The defendant may file a motion to dismiss on the basis that there are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt. The facts on which the motion is based must be alleged specifically and the motion must be sworn.”
The restored sentence uses “must” where the pre-2026 rule said “should.” The rest of subdivision (d)(2) is unchanged from the version that took effect in July:
- The State may file a traverse or a demurrer at least two days before any hearing on the motion.
- The court must presume the factual matters alleged in the motion are true unless the State specifically denies them in the traverse.
- A traverse must be sworn and may allege additional material facts.
- The court must deny the motion if, in its traverse, the State presents sworn evidence establishing with specificity the existence of a material disputed fact.
All seven justices concurred. The Court stated that a motion for rehearing will not alter the amendment’s effective date.
What It Means for Practitioners
Any motion to dismiss under Rule 3.190(d)(2) filed from now on must be sworn, and its supporting facts must be alleged specifically. For roughly eleven weeks — from July 13, 2026, until October 1, 2026 — the rule did not contain that requirement. The opinion does not address motions filed during that period.
The timing change adopted in 2025 remains in place: a motion to dismiss must be filed by the deadline the trial court sets, unless the defendant shows good cause for the delay or the motion is based on fundamental grounds.
The Opinion
Read the full opinion (PDF, Florida Supreme Court)
| Court | Supreme Court of Florida |
| Case No. | SC2024-0839 |
| Rule | Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(d)(2) |
| Decided | October 1, 2026 |
| Effective | Immediately |
| Prior opinion | October 30, 2025 (amendments effective July 13, 2026) |