Deloach v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Deloach v. State

911 So. 2d 888, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15626, 2005 WL 2414743

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 3, 2005

DocketNo. 1D05-0676

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 911 So. 2d 888 (Deloach 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

Deloach v. State, 911 So. 2d 888, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15626, 2005 WL 2414743 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to disqualify the trial judge. We reverse. At the hearing, a point in contention was whether the Appellee’s witness qualified as an expert. Before the hearing, the court sua sponte informed Appellant that, during an ex parte meeting, it had advised the Appellee’s witness regarding the steps he needed to take to qualify as an expert, and offered to recuse himself. When Appellant accepted the offer to disqualify, the trial judge should have fulfilled the offer. The restitution order as to at[889]*889torney’s fees is REVERSED, and the case remanded for rehearing before a different judge.

BENTON, POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to disqualify the trial judge. We reverse. At the hearing, a point in contention was whether the Appellee’s witness qualified as an expert. Before the hearing, the court sua sponte informed Appellant that, during an ex parte meeting, it had advised the Appellee’s witness regarding the steps he needed to take to qualify as an expert, and offered to recuse himself. When Appellant accepted the offer to disqualify, the trial judge should have fulfilled the offer. The restitution order as to at[889]*889torney’s fees is REVERSED, and the case remanded for rehearing before a different judge.

BENTON, POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

911 So. 2d 888, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15626, 2005 WL 2414743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deloach-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack