Blaxton v. State

85 So. 3d 1150, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4605, 2012 WL 987506
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 26, 2012·No. 1D11-6308·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

*1151 PER CURIAM.

Because the trial court properly treated Appellant’s “Petition for Writ of Mandamus: Contesting Judge Michael G. Allen’s Prejudice” as a motion for disqualification, we treat Appellant’s appeal as a writ of prohibition. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c); see also Sutton v. State, 975 So.2d 1073, 1076 (Fla.2008) (“[Pjrohibition is ... clearly recognized as the proper avenue for immediate review of whether a motion to disqualify a trial judge has been correctly denied.”).

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.

DAVIS, THOMAS, and RAY, JJ., concur.

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

Blaxton v. State, 85 So. 3d 1150, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4605, 2012 WL 987506 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

85 So. 3d 1150 (Blaxton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Forney v. Crews
112 So. 3d 741 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)