Major Florida Court: ‘Stand Your Ground’ Dismissal Motion Does NOT Have to Be Sworn

December 19, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed the finding of a judge who mistakenly believed a defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Florida’s Stand Your Ground law had to be sworn to like a Rule 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss.

In Florida, Stand Your Ground is a well-known statute that permits defendants to use or threaten deadly force when this is necessary to:

• Prevent death or serious bodily harm to themselves
• Prevent death or serious bodily harm to others
• Prevent the commission of a forcible felony (e.g. murder, armed robbery, sexual battery)

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law also permits the use (or threatened use) of nondeadly force if reasonably necessary to defend against any imminent use of unlawful force. For more on Stand Your Ground (codified under Fla. Stat. 776.012, 776.013, 776.031, 776.032 and 776.041), click here.

Note: Stand Your Ground eliminates the “duty to retreat” before using force if someone isn’t engaged in unlawful activity at the time they use or threaten the force, and they are in a place they have the lawful right to be. Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law can be used as a defense against a variety of criminal charges, such as:

• Murder and attempted murder
• Manslaughter
• Kidnapping 
• Assault and aggravated assault
• Battery and aggravated battery
• Felony battery

To qualify for Stand Your Ground immunity, a use of force must be reasonable in nature. This means a “reasonable and prudent person situated in the same circumstances and knowing what the defendant knew would have used the same force as did the defendant.” Montanez v. State, 24 So. 3d 799, 803 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2010)

Under Florida law, someone arrested may file a motion to dismiss before trial in an effort to claim pretrial immunity under Stand Your Ground (Fla. Stat. 776.032). At the pretrial immunity hearing, the State must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s use or threatened use of force was unreasonable. 

If the State fails to prove this, the charges are to be dismissed. If the State succeeds, a defendant may still argue self-defense at trial. There, the State is required to establish that the defendant did not lawfully use force beyond a reasonable doubt (the typical burden of proof).

When someone files a Stand Your Ground motion to dismiss, it is important to understand what this does (and does not) require. To be legally viable, a Stand Your Ground motion must allege facts that make a prima facie (on its face) showing of a reasonable use of force. It is only once such a showing is made that the burden shifts to the State to prove unreasonableness.

Under Florida law, a Stand Your Ground motion to dismiss is not the only form of a pretrial motion to dismiss charges. The most common form of this motion is a motion to dismiss as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 3.190(c)(4) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

In contrast to a 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss, a Stand Your Ground motion is filed pursuant to the statute itself – Fla. Stat. 776.032. Thus, there are slightly different rules surrounding what a Stand Your Ground motion must contain compared to the requirements of a “(c)(4)” motion.

A key aspect of a 3.190(c)(4) motion is that the statement of facts (factual allegations) must be sworn to by a person with knowledge of those facts (e.g. the defendant). The facts of the motion must also be undisputed by the State before a motion hearing can even happen (otherwise, the State will file a traverse).

But is this also the case for a Stand Your Ground motion to dismiss? Must the facts in a Stand Your Ground motion be sworn to by the defendant who is making the motion (or another party with knowledge) before a pretrial immunity hearing can occur? The answer to this question is no.

Let’s take a look at a key case discussing this distinction – Casanova v. State, 335 So.3d 1231 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2021) – in which a major Florida court had to step in to correct a trial judge’s misunderstanding of this issue.

KEY CASE: Casanova v. State, 335 So.3d 1231 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2021)

In Casanova, the defendant (Casanova) appealed to the 3rd DCA after his Stand Your Ground motion to dismiss on one count of battery was denied by the trial judge. 

The trial judge did not rule on the merits of the motion – but rather, observed that the factual allegations made in the motion were not sworn to by a party with knowledge (such as the defendant), which is required of a 3.190(c)(4) motion.

Because the Stand Your Ground motion to dismiss was “unsworn,” the trial judge held that he could not grant Casanova’s motion unless one of the following was true:

• The motion was sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein
• The facts were supported by evidence or testimony introduced into the record at the pretrial hearing

Since the motion was unsworn and the evidence and testimony did not conclusively establish every fact alleged, the trial judge denied Casanova’s motion for Stand Your Ground immunity.

On appeal, Casanova argued that the trial judge misapplied the law. The 3rd DCA agreed and reversed the trial judge’s order, writing:

“[W]e conclude that a defendant’s motion to dismiss under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law can establish a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution even though the motion to dismiss is not sworn to by someone with personal knowledge or supported by evidence or testimony establishing the facts in the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the order under review, and remand with instructions for the lower tribunal to evaluate Casanova’s motion to dismiss on the merits.”

Put simply, Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal (Miami area) held that Casanova did not have to swear to the motion or prove all of its factual allegations at the hearing – unlike a 3.190(c)(4) motion. Thus, the judge could immediately rule on the merits (e.g. whether the State proved the force was unreasonable by clear and convincing evidence).

In sum, Casanova v. State, 335 So.3d 1231 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2021) is a significant development in Florida case law that clarifies the difference between “Stand Your Ground” pretrial motions to dismiss and typical motions to dismiss as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 3.190(c)(4). The 3rd DCA ruled:

• Unlike a (c)(4) motion, the facts do not have to be sworn to by the defendant or another party with knowledge
• If the State contests one or more facts, this can be viewed as a defendant failing to meet the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of lawful use of force
• Because the motion does not have to be sworn to/not every fact has to be established by the defendant at the hearing in the record, a trial judge can rule on the motion without either of these having occurred

Florida defense attorneys and defendants should be aware of Casanova v. State, 335 So.3d 1231 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2021) if a Stand Your Ground motion is ever denied because it was unsworn.

Knowing about the Stand Your Ground law in Florida is crucial when evaluating whether this is a potentially viable defense in response to a criminal charge. If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida and wishes to assert a Stand Your Ground defense, it is vital to find experienced and aggressive legal representation as soon as possible. 

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share