Court-Set Deadlines Govern Motions to Dismiss (Including Stand Your Ground) with Good-Cause/Fundamental Exceptions: Comprehensive Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190

Introduction

In a per curiam opinion issued on October 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of Florida adopted sweeping amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190 (Pretrial Motions), effective July 13, 2026. The amendments were developed by the Criminal Court Steering Committee (CCSC) in response to statewide practice concerns crystallized by the Fourth District’s decision in Acostafigueroa v. State, 373 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). Acostafigueroa had stated that a motion to dismiss claiming self-defense immunity under Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute may be entertained “at any time before trial” under rule 3.190(c). The Florida Supreme Court’s action clarifies the timing and content requirements for pretrial motions to dismiss—including those asserting Stand Your Ground immunity—tightens procedures on traverses, consolidates suppression practice, clarifies depositions to perpetuate testimony, and rewrites the rule on motions to expedite.

The rulemaking emphasizes calendar discipline, uniform procedure, and better records for review. Notably, the Court now requires that motions to dismiss be filed by the deadline set by the trial judge, with dismissal the default consequence for untimely filings unless the defendant demonstrates “good cause” or the motion raises “fundamental” grounds. The Court also invites further public comment on its removal (in the newly structured subdivision) of the traditional requirement that a defendant swear to a “C-4” motion to dismiss based on undisputed facts.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court adopts the CCSC’s proposal “with modification,” resulting in these principal changes:

Timing and enforcement of motions to dismiss:
- A motion to dismiss must be filed by the court-imposed deadline; an untimely motion “must” be dismissed unless the defendant shows good cause for the delay or the grounds are fundamental.
- The Court clarifies procedures for “C-4” dismissals (no material disputed facts and no prima facie case), relocates the mechanics into a newly structured subdivision, and adds a minimum lead-time requirement for the State’s traverse or demurrer: at least two days before any hearing.
- The Court expressly invites comment on removing the historical requirement that a defendant swear to a “C-4” motion.
Consolidation of suppression practice:
- Motions to suppress evidence from unlawful searches and motions to suppress statements are combined into one subdivision, with a clarified timing rule keyed to a judge-set deadline, a good-cause safety valve, and a new requirement that—upon request and before jeopardy attaches—judges issue written orders with findings of fact and conclusions of law if suppression is granted.
Depositions to perpetuate testimony:
- Substantial clarifications identify prerequisites, who bears expenses, the presiding official, the governing procedural rules, and how such depositions may be used. The rule now expressly treats depositions to perpetuate testimony as potential substantive evidence (if admissible), but the transcript or recording itself is not to be admitted as an exhibit; the testimony is read or played to the factfinder.
Motion to expedite:
- The subdivision is rewritten to track and enforce statutory directives requiring expedited treatment for cases involving elderly or disabled victims and for specified child abuse and sexual offenses.
Additional refinements:
- “Charging document” replaces “indictment or information” in several places.
- Certificates of service must accompany filings.
- Upon request and prior to attachment of jeopardy, trial courts must issue written orders with findings and conclusions when granting motions to dismiss.

The Court declined to adopt CCSC’s proposals that would have: (1) required sworn facts for all motions to dismiss; (2) amended communication-technology provisions (subdivision (h)(2)); and (3) adopted a CCSC explanatory note.

The amendments take effect July 13, 2026. Recognizing that the adopted text differs from what was previously published for public comment, the Court reopens the comment period for 75 days (comments due January 13, 2026), specifically inviting input on the removal of the sworn-motion requirement for “C‑4” dismissals.

Precedents Cited

The Court’s rulemaking was prompted by, and expressly references, Acostafigueroa v. State, 373 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). There, the Fourth District stated that a motion to dismiss claiming self-defense immunity from prosecution (Stand Your Ground, section 776.032) may be entertained at any time before trial under rule 3.190(c). The Supreme Court’s amendments respond to that interpretation by fortifying the rule’s timing structure:

Rule 3.190(b) now expressly includes “immunity under section 776.032” as a defense that can be asserted by motion to dismiss.
Rule 3.190(c) now emphasizes a court-set deadline for filing dismissal motions and mandates dismissal of untimely motions absent good cause or fundamental grounds. In practical terms, this cabins any reading of the prior rule that suggested generalized “at any time before trial” leeway for Stand Your Ground motions.

While the opinion does not canvass other self-defense immunity cases, practitioners will recognize this rule amendment as harmonizing practice with the pretrial evidentiary hearing mechanism for section 776.032 claims and with modern docket management expectations.

Legal Reasoning and Core Principles Applied

1) Timing discipline for motions to dismiss

The Court’s central move is to require the filing of dismissal motions by a court-set deadline, with a mandatory sanction for late filings unless the defendant can demonstrate “good cause” or “fundamental” grounds. This:

Reinforces the trial judge’s scheduling authority and promotes orderly, predictable pretrial practice.
Protects against last-minute dismissal attempts that could derail trial settings without a compelling justification.
Preserves relief for truly systemic or constitutional defects (fundamental grounds) and for cases where the defendant could not reasonably comply (good cause).

The Court’s narrative focus—addressing the Fourth District’s “any time before trial” view—signals that Stand Your Ground immunity motions are subject to these deadlines. By explicitly identifying section 776.032 immunity as a “motion to dismiss” ground in subdivision (b), the Court brings such motions within the same timing architecture as other dismissal defenses.

2) The restructured traverse/demurrer process for “C‑4” motions

The decision relocates and clarifies the mechanics of the “C‑4” dismissal (no material factual dispute; undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case):

The State’s traverse must be sworn and must specifically deny the material facts or add material facts that create a genuine dispute.
The State must file its traverse or demurrer no later than two days before any hearing on the motion. This ensures the defense knows the factual posture in advance and can prepare for a focused evidentiary argument.
If the State’s sworn traverse establishes a material factual dispute, the court must deny the “C‑4” motion, consistent with longstanding practice that fact disputes are for trial, not dismissal.
The Court invites comment on the removal of the historical requirement that the defendant’s “C‑4” motion itself be sworn. The adopted text makes the State’s traverse sworn; the motion’s sworn status is no longer stated in the procedure subsection, a significant potential rebalancing of burdens and risks for defendants.

3) Written orders upon request when relief is granted

For both dismissals and suppressions, if relief is granted and a party requests it, the trial judge must issue a written order with findings of fact and conclusions of law before jeopardy attaches. This promotes:

A clear record for interlocutory and post-judgment review (e.g., State appeals of suppression or dismissal orders).
Transparency and accountability in pretrial adjudications that can dispose of charges or exclude critical evidence.
Efficiency—early articulation of reasons may resolve or narrow appellate issues.

4) Consolidated and clarified suppression practice

By merging suppression of physical evidence and suppression of statements into one subdivision, the Court simplifies motion practice and timing. The revised timing rule anchors filing to a judge-set deadline, with late filing permitted only for good cause or if the State does not object. The rule also codifies the court’s duty to assess legal sufficiency before taking evidence and confirms the court’s ability to take evidence on any necessary factual issue.

5) Clarified depositions to perpetuate testimony

The opinion brings precision to a frequently-misunderstood area:

Who and when: Either party may move to perpetuate; the motion must be verified or supported by affidavits demonstrating materiality and necessity (including witness unavailability or likely inability to attend).
Timing near trial: Motions filed within 10 days of trial may be denied absent good cause.
Presiding official: Unless the parties agree otherwise, a judge or a court-appointed commissioner must preside and make evidentiary rulings during the deposition.
Rules and oath: Civil deposition rules govern; witnesses are under oath and subject to perjury.
Evidence use and form: If admissible, the deposition is substantive evidence that is read or played to the factfinder; the transcript or recording itself is not admitted as an exhibit. The court must exclude depositions if the proponent procured the witness’s absence through threats, inducements, or similar misconduct.
Expenses and remote practice: If the State moved to perpetuate and the deposition is not done remotely, the State must pay the defense attorney’s and a non-custodial defendant’s travel and subsistence. Although the Court declined broader communication-technology amendments, the rule’s text contemplates remote depositions in practice.

6) Expedited proceedings

The rewritten motion-to-expedite provision directs courts to:

Consider advancing cases with elderly or disabled victims under section 825.106, Florida Statutes, on the State’s motion.
Hear and dispose of enumerated offenses involving children as expeditiously as possible under section 918.0155, Florida Statutes.

Potential Impact on Florida Criminal Practice

1) Stand Your Ground and other dismissal motions: file early, or risk waiver

The new timing architecture displaces any routine reliance on “at any time before trial” for Stand Your Ground motions. Defendants should anticipate and meet court-imposed deadlines. Late dismissal motions—SYG or otherwise—will be dismissed unless the defense can show good cause or fundamental grounds. Practically:

Judges will likely issue pretrial scheduling orders with specific deadlines for all 3.190 motions.
Defense counsel should develop immunity and dismissal theories early (often by or before arraignment) to avoid the burden of proving good cause later.
Prosecutors can oppose untimely motions; the default remedy is dismissal of the motion, not a continuance, unless the defense meets the good-cause or fundamental-ground standard.

2) Anticipate more litigation on “good cause” and “fundamental grounds”

“Good cause” and “fundamental grounds” are fact- and law-sensitive. Expect litigation over whether late-discovered facts, late disclosures, or newly retained experts justify late filing. “Fundamental grounds” typically include jurisdictional defects or a charging document that fails to state a crime; self-defense immunity itself is unlikely to qualify as “fundamental” simply by its nature—it still requires fact development at a pretrial hearing.

3) Traverse timelines and case preparation

The new two-day minimum for traverses in “C‑4” cases imposes a planning discipline on the State and gives the defense fair notice of any sworn factual disputes. Judges may still require earlier traverses by order; two days is a floor, not a ceiling. The sworn-traverse requirement promotes accountability and discourages unsupported factual denials.

4) Written orders and appellate practice

Requiring written findings and conclusions upon request when dismissals or suppressions are granted will standardize records for appeal, facilitate meaningful review, and reduce remands for insufficient orders. The “before jeopardy attaches” clause protects appeal rights.

5) Depositions to perpetuate testimony: higher formality, clearer use limits

Requiring a presiding judge or commissioner, applying civil deposition rules, and clarifying costs and use at trial will likely increase the quality and reliability of perpetuated testimony. The prohibition on admitting the recording or transcript as an exhibit (as opposed to reading/playing it to the factfinder) prevents undue emphasis during jury deliberations while preserving the evidence itself.

6) Consolidated suppression practice reduces fragmentation

Rolling statement suppression into a unified suppression subdivision streamlines motion practice. Counsel will need to watch the new timing rule, which, like dismissal motions, keys to a court-set deadline, with late filing permitted on a good-cause showing or if the State does not object. Expect fewer “eve-of-trial” suppression surprises.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Motion to dismiss (Rule 3.190): A pretrial request to end the case based on legal defects or undisputed facts showing no crime. This includes Stand Your Ground immunity claims under section 776.032.
“C‑4” motion: A shorthand for a motion to dismiss arguing there are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not make out a prima facie case of guilt. If the State files a sworn traverse creating a factual dispute, the motion must be denied, and the dispute goes to trial.
Traverse: The State’s sworn response disputing the facts alleged in a dismissal motion. Under the amended rule, the State must file it at least two days before a hearing on a “C‑4” motion.
Demurrer: A legal objection arguing that, even if the facts are as alleged, the motion fails as a matter of law.
Good cause: A justified and reasonably unavoidable reason for missing a deadline (for example, newly discovered evidence not earlier available despite diligence).
Fundamental grounds: Serious defects that strike at the legitimacy of the prosecution, such as lack of jurisdiction or a charging document that fails to allege a crime. These can excuse late filing.
Attachment of jeopardy: The legal moment when double jeopardy protections engage (typically when the jury is sworn in a jury trial, or when the first witness is sworn in a bench trial).
Depositions to perpetuate testimony: A formal, court-supervised deposition taken to preserve a witness’s testimony for trial when the witness may not be available. If otherwise admissible, that testimony can be read or played for the factfinder.

Open Questions and Practical Tips

Open questions flagged by the opinion or text

Sworn “C‑4” motions: The Court signals it has removed the traditional requirement that the defendant swear to a “C‑4” motion and invites comments specifically on this point. Until the comment period closes and any further refinements are made, practitioners should monitor for clarifying orders or administrative guidance.
Interaction between “at any time” language and new deadlines: The text in subdivision (c) retains a list of grounds the court may entertain “at any time” (historically including the “C‑4” ground), yet simultaneously directs dismissal of untimely motions absent good cause or fundamental grounds. Expect courts to harmonize these provisions by limiting “at any time” to the enumerated items that are inherently fundamental (e.g., pardon, double jeopardy, previously granted immunity) and by requiring compliance with deadlines for other grounds unless good cause is shown.
Remote depositions: The Court declined broader “communication technology” amendments, but the depositions rule references the possibility of remote proceedings by tying cost-shifting to whether the deposition is “done remotely.” Local administrative orders may fill gaps. Counsel should address format and logistics in any motion or agreed order.

Practice tips for defense counsel

Calendar discipline: At arraignment or the earliest case management conference, seek a clear, written schedule for all 3.190 motions. Treat those deadlines as presumptively firm.
SYG motions: Develop immunity facts early; anticipate an evidentiary hearing well before trial. If new facts emerge late, be prepared to demonstrate “good cause” for late filing.
“C‑4” motions: Draft with precise, material, undisputed facts; be prepared for a sworn traverse. If you want a written order for appellate purposes, request it explicitly before jeopardy attaches.
Suppression practice: Combine search and statement issues into one filing when possible and meet the court’s deadline. Where late issues arise, confer to see if the State will consent to consider a late motion; otherwise, build a detailed good-cause record.
Depositions to perpetuate: Include detailed affidavits establishing materiality, anticipated unavailability, and necessity. Propose a commissioner if the judge cannot preside, and address whether the proceeding will be remote or in-person along with any cost issues.

Practice tips for prosecutors

Pretrial orders: Request a unified schedule that sets firm deadlines for all defense pretrial motions and for the State’s traverses.
Traverses: Calendar the two-day minimum; when feasible, file earlier to aid the court and avoid continuances. Ensure sworn statements are specific and add material facts when appropriate.
Late filings: Oppose untimely motions that do not demonstrate good cause. Ensure any ruling dismissing a motion for lateness is memorialized.
Written orders: If suppression or dismissal is granted, promptly request written findings and conclusions before jeopardy attaches to preserve appellate rights.
Depositions to perpetuate: If the State moves, budget for defense travel and subsistence when the deposition is not remote. Provide witness statements required to be disclosed at the deposition.

Conclusion

This opinion modernizes and streamlines Florida’s core pretrial motion practice. The centerpiece is a clear, enforceable timing regime for motions to dismiss—including Stand Your Ground immunity—anchored by court-set deadlines and subject only to good-cause and fundamental-error exceptions. The Court further promotes orderly litigation by requiring timely traverses, consolidating suppression motions with standardized timing and written-order requirements, and by clarifying the formalities and evidentiary use of depositions to perpetuate testimony. The rewritten expedite provision aligns court practice with statutory mandates to prioritize vulnerable victims’ cases.

For practitioners, the takeaways are straightforward: file early, build a record for any late filings, prepare sworn and specific traverses, and request written findings when relief is granted. For trial judges, the rule endorses rigorous case management and clearer orders that will aid review and increase predictability. The Supreme Court’s request for public comment—most notably on the removal of the sworn “C‑4” motion requirement—signals that further refinements may follow. But the overarching message is already unmistakable: timing, clarity, and accountability now govern Florida criminal pretrial motion practice under Rule 3.190.

Key Dates and Participation

Effective date of amendments: July 13, 2026.
Comment deadline: January 13, 2026 (with service on the CCSC Chair and OSCA liaison; attorneys must file via the e‑Portal).
Response from Committee Chair: due February 3, 2026.
The filing of a motion for rehearing does not alter the effective date.