
    The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Leovigildo PADRON, Appellee.
    No. 87-516.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Feb. 16, 1988.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Steven T. Scott, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.
    Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Henry H. Harnage, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
    Before HENDRY, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The trial court dismissed the charges against Padrón based on the state’s failure to disclose the identity of the confidential informant. The court found that defendant may have been prejudiced in his ability to present his asserted defense of entrapment. We remand the cause for further proceedings to enable the trial court to determine whether the state’s conduct falls within the ruling of Aldazabal v. State, 471 So.2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Reversed and remanded.

HENDRY and BASKIN, JJ., concur.

FERGUSON, Judge

(concurring).

Unlike in Aldazabal v. State, 471 So.2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), it is not alleged that the confidential informant here was the only participant or an active participant in the negotiations for the drug transaction which forms the basis for the prosecution. Nothing in the affidavit filed in support of the motion to dismiss shows that police conduct exceeded permissible bounds as a matter of law, or negates the existence of an opportunistic predisposition on the part of the defendant to commit the offenses. In sum there is no showing of such great prejudice as would warrant the severe sanction of dismissal of the charges. I agree that on the present state of the record, as in State v. Manderville, 512 So.2d 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), dismissal of the case was premature.  