STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
FIDEL EGIDO, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State appealed a trial court's order dismissing a battery charge against Egido based on claimed immunity for justifiable use of force. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal order, holding that immunity claims must be resolved through motions to dismiss rather than standalone immunity orders, in accordance with Florida Supreme Court precedent.
The court affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the case, holding that immunity claims arising under chapter 776 should be resolved through motions to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(b), resulting in dismissal orders when the motion is well taken, not standalone immunity orders that do not terminate the case.
[1] A motion seeking immunity from criminal prosecution, when found to be well taken by the trial court, should result in an order dismissing the case.
[2] An order merely granting immunity, without dismissing the case, does not terminate the prosecution and is not immediately appealable.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The problem with an order merely granting immunity is that it does not end the case and is not appealable.”
Establishes the procedural defect with the trial court's initial immunity-only order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEgido was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer for events at his house when a non-uniformed deputy attempted to serve a child support war…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Dismiss Based On Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
The State appeals an order dismissing this criminal prosecution against Fidel Eg-ido. We affirm the order on appeal without discussion of the substantive issues raised by the State. We address only the order that should be entered in this context because confusion over the order substantially delayed this appeal.
Mr. Egido was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer for events that occurred at his house when a non-uniformed deputy attempted to locate Mr. Egido’s adult son to serve him with a child support warrant. Mr. Egido filed a motion to dismiss the case, claiming that he was entitled to immunity under various sections of chapter 776, Florida Statutes (2007), including section 776.032(1), which he argued immunized him from criminal prosecution for his justifiable use of force on the officer. After the hearing, the trial court decided that the motion was well taken. The trial court, however, was familiar with this court’s decision in Horn v. State, 17 So.3d 836, 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), in which we suggested in dicta that a motion seeking immunity from prosecution should result initially in an order granting immunity. In Horn, we assumed that a motion to dismiss would be a second step if the State elected to continue the prosecution. Id. In light of Horn, the trial *89court here ordered that it would only grant immunity, but not dismiss the case.
The problem with an order merely granting immunity is that it does not end the case and is not appealable. In this case, apparently both the trial court and Mr. Egido were intending to force the State to proceed to trial and allow jeopardy to attach.
When the trial court made this ruling, the dicta in Horn had already been overridden by the supreme court’s decision in Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456, 464 (Fla. 2010), which held that such an issue of immunity should be handled by a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(b) and, thus, should result in an order dismissing the case when the trial court finds the motion well taken.
Ultimately, the trial court did enter an order of dismissal in this case. While the substantive issue is close, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in entering this order.
Affirmed.
LaROSE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2010)
- Horn v. State, 17 So. 3d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)