Bembridge v. State
Bembridge sought a writ of prohibition to stop his trial pending an evidentiary hearing on his Stand Your Ground immunity motion, but the trial court had denied that motion as untimely rather than on the merits. The Third DCA held that prohibition does not lie to challenge a procedural denial of a section 776.032 motion, and that certiorari—not prohibition—is the proper vehicle for such review; because the petition would have been untimely as a certiorari petition (filed more than 30 days after the order), the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Key facts
- Bembridge filed a writ of prohibition to challenge his trial court's denial of his Stand Your Ground immunity motion, arguing the motion was procedurally denied as untimely rather than decided on the merits.
- The trial court denied Bembridge's section 776.032 motion to dismiss based on timeliness rather than ruling on whether he was entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion reinforces a growing consensus among Florida's DCAs (1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and now 3rd) that the proper vehicle to challenge a non-merits denial of a Stand Your Ground immunity motion is certiorari, not… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.