IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.190. (2026)

Supreme Court of Florida.

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.190.

No. SC2024-0839

Decided: October 01, 2026

Judge Fleur J. Lobree, Chair, Criminal Court Steering Committee, Miami, Florida, Judge Joseph A. Bulone, Past Chair, Criminal Court Steering Committee, Clearwater, Florida, and Bart Schneider, Staff Liaison, Office of the State Courts Administrator, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner Jude Faccidomo of Ratzan & Faccidomo, on behalf of the Criminal Law Section of The Florida Bar, and as Chair, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Miami, Florida, Katelyn Knaak Johnston, Past Chair, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Jacksonville, Florida, Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, and Kelly Noel Smith, Attorney Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida; Douglas A. Wyler of Wyler Law Firm, on behalf of The Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, Inc., Fernandina Beach, Florida; Jason Cromey of Jason Cromey, B.C.S., on behalf of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Pensacola, Florida; James Uthmeier, Attorney General, David Dewhirst, Solicitor General, Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, Former Acting Solicitor General, and Nathan A. Forrester, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida; and Clifton Wilson, Jr. Public Defender, Third Judicial Circuit of Florida, Lake City, Florida, and John Eddy Morrison, Assistant Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami, Florida, on behalf of Florida Public Defender Association, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida, Responding with comments

The Criminal Court Steering Committee (CCSC) filed a report proposing amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190 (Pretrial Motions).¹ The amendments were in response to a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal related to the time for filing of a motion to dismiss based on a claim of “stand your ground” immunity under section 776.032, Florida Statutes. See Acostafigueroa v. State, 373 So. 3d 908, 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (stating 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, we adopted amendments, to be effective July 13, 2026, but with several modifications. Most relevant now, the Court removed the requirement of sworn facts for motions to dismiss. Because the Court adopted amendments to rule 3.190(d) (Traverse or Demurrer; Rendition of Order) that differed from those that were previously published for comment, a comment period was provided. The Court received seven comments.

After considering the comments, we further amend rule 3.190(d) to keep the swearing requirement. The subdivision is amended to provide that “[t]he facts on which the motion is based must be alleged specifically and the motion must be sworn.”

The Court hereby amends the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring. The amendments shall become effective immediately.

It is so ordered.

APPENDIX

RULE 3.190. PRETRIAL MOTIONS

(a) – (c) [No Change]

(d) Traverse or Demurrer; Rendition of Order.

(1) [No Change]

(2) Claim of Undisputed Material Facts; Traverse or Demurrer. 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.At least two days before any hearing on the motion, the state may file a traverse or a demurrer. In considering the motion, the court must presume that factual matters alleged in it 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 to dismiss if, in its traverse, the state presents sworn evidence establishing with specificity the existence of a material disputed fact.

(3) [No Change]

(e) – (i) [No Change]

Repeal

[No Change]

Committee Notes

[No Change]

FOOTNOTES

1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; see also Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.140.

PER CURIAM.

COURIEL, C.J., and LABARGA, MUÑIZ, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, BARRIOS, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network