Aurigemma v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Aurigemma v. State

964 So. 2d 224, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 13398, 2007 WL 2428570

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 29, 2007

DocketNo. 4D07-1360

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 964 So. 2d 224 (Aurigemma v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aurigemma v. State, 964 So. 2d 224, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 13398, 2007 WL 2428570 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Peter J. Aurigemma seeks review of an order that denied his motion to disqualify the trial judge from presiding over his upcoming rule 3.850 evidentiary hearing. We grant the petition.

Pending below is Aurigemma’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 wherein he alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The motion to disqualify is based on Aurigem-ma’s allegation that his trial counsel has hired the trial judge’s husband multiple times as an expert witness for his clients in criminal cases. Aurigemma alleges that the trial judge’s husband has benefited financially from his relationship with Auri-gemma’s trial attorney, whose performance will be evaluated by the judge at the evidentiary hearing. This ongoing “business relationship” creates the requisite well-founded fear to support the motion to disqualify. Corte v. City of Riviera Beach, 954 So.2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Betkesda Mem’l Hosp., Inc. v. Cassone, 807 So.2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Based on the foregoing, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition and direct [225]*225the Chief Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit to have this case reassigned to a successor judge.

WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. STONE, J., dissents with opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Peter J. Aurigemma seeks review of an order that denied his motion to disqualify the trial judge from presiding over his upcoming rule 3.850 evidentiary hearing. We grant the petition.

Pending below is Aurigemma’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 wherein he alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The motion to disqualify is based on Aurigem-ma’s allegation that his trial counsel has hired the trial judge’s husband multiple times as an expert witness for his clients in criminal cases. Aurigemma alleges that the trial judge’s husband has benefited financially from his relationship with Auri-gemma’s trial attorney, whose performance will be evaluated by the judge at the evidentiary hearing. This ongoing “business relationship” creates the requisite well-founded fear to support the motion to disqualify. Corte v. City of Riviera Beach, 954 So.2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Betkesda Mem’l Hosp., Inc. v. Cassone, 807 So.2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Based on the foregoing, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition and direct [225]*225the Chief Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit to have this case reassigned to a successor judge.

WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. STONE, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

964 So. 2d 224, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 13398, 2007 WL 2428570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aurigemma-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack