Motion to Dismiss
This article explains the benefits of filing a Sworn Motion to Dismiss under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) which is often called the “C4 Motion to Dismiss.”
If you are charged with a crime and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case, then contact an experienced criminal defense attorney at the Sammis Law Firm. Call 813-250-0500.
Sample Motion to Dismiss under Rule 3.190(c)(4)
SWORN MOTION TO DISMISS
COMES NOW, [[name of the Defendant]] by and through the undersigned attorney and pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), respectfully requests that this Court enter an order dismissing the criminal charge filed against the Defendant in this case.
As grounds for this request, the Defendant would show the Court there are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the Defendant.
The facts and law upon which this motion is based are as follows:
- The Defendant is charged with one count of [[insert charge, statute number, and classification of criminal offense]].
- The case was filed by direct file information by the State of Florida which alleges that on [[date]], in the County of Hillsborough and State of Florida, Defendant willfully [[track the language of the charging document]].
- [[Insert the undisputed facts]].
- [[Explain the elements of the offense]].
- [[Insert the reason why the undispute facts are insufficient to prove one or more elements of the offense]].
- [[Explain the purpose of the (c)(4) Motion to Dismiss]].
- In Florida, the purpose of Rule 3.190(c)(4) motions are to cull the wheat from the chaff without wasting valuable court time. As explained by the Fifth District Court of Appeal, the function of the (c)(4) motion to dismiss is to ascertain whether or not the facts which the State relies upon to constitute the crime charged, and on which it will offer evidence to prove it, do, as a matter of law, establish a prima facie case of guilt of the accused. State v. Upton, 392 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) citing State v. Davis, 243 So.2d 587 (Fla.1971).
- Furthermore, “[T]purpose of a motion to dismiss is to allow a pretrial determination of the law of the case when the facts are not in dispute”. State v. Pasko, 815 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2002).
- Should the prosecution chose to traverse this motion, the State’s traverse must dispute “material” facts. In State v. Hysell, the 5th DCA held that a traverse mandates the denial of a motion to dismiss only when it “creates a dispute as to material evidentiary facts [emphasis in original]”. The dismissal in that case occurred because the state’s traverse merely “disputed the legal effect” of the facts. 569 So. 2d 866, 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). In State v. Nunez, the 3rd DCA held that the state’s traverse was insufficient to survive the defendant’s motion to dismiss, because “a traverse requires more than a did not, did so swearing match.” 881 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2004).
- The crime of [[state crime]] did not occur.
WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Court will enter an order dismissing the criminal charges pending against the Defendant in this cause.