Bernard Montgomery v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bernard Montgomery v. State

150 So. 3d 1231, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18844, 2014 WL 6460697

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 19, 2014

Docket4D14-3522

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 150 So. 3d 1231 (Bernard Montgomery 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

Bernard Montgomery v. State, 150 So. 3d 1231, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18844, 2014 WL 6460697 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant petitions for a writ of prohibition following the circuit judge’s denial of the defendant’s motion to disqualify the judge. Based on our review of the petition and motion, we issued an order to the state to show cause why we should not grant the petition. The state candidly has responded that it can find no such cause. *1232 We conclude the petition has merit and grant the petition. See Gore v. State, 96.4 So.2d 1257, 1268 (Fla.2007) (“The standard for determining the legal sufficiency of a motion to disqualify is whether the facts alleged, which must be assumed to be true, would cause the movant to have a well-founded fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial at the hands of that judge.”). The defendant’s cases shall be re-assigned to another circuit judge.

Petition granted.

TAYLOR, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant petitions for a writ of prohibition following the circuit judge’s denial of the defendant’s motion to disqualify the judge. Based on our review of the petition and motion, we issued an order to the state to show cause why we should not grant the petition. The state candidly has responded that it can find no such cause. *1232 We conclude the petition has merit and grant the petition. See Gore v. State, 96.4 So.2d 1257, 1268 (Fla.2007) (“The standard for determining the legal sufficiency of a motion to disqualify is whether the facts alleged, which must be assumed to be true, would cause the movant to have a well-founded fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial at the hands of that judge.”). The defendant’s cases shall be re-assigned to another circuit judge.

Petition granted.

TAYLOR, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 So. 3d 1231, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18844, 2014 WL 6460697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernard-montgomery-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack