Eato v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Eato v. State

7 So. 3d 633, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3226, 2009 WL 996323

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 15, 2009

Docket3D08-1335

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 7 So. 3d 633 (Eato 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

Eato v. State, 7 So. 3d 633, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3226, 2009 WL 996323 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, Judge.

Charles Eato appeals from an order denying his pro se motion to disqualify Judges Jacqueline Hogan Scola and Peter R. Lopez in case numbers F03-2288A and F03-2289A. 1 We treat the instant appeal as a petition for writ of prohibition, see Madura v. Turosienski, 901 So.2d 396, 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (treating the appeal from an order denying a motion to disqualify the trial judge as a petition for writ of prohibition), which we deny finding no abuse of discretion. See King v. State, 840 So.2d 1047,1049 (Fla.2003) (stating that an order denying a motion to disqualify is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(e) (requiring a motion to disqualify be filed “within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion”).

1

. Eato was permitted to represent himself in this case following a Faretta hearing. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).

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

WELLS, Judge.

Charles Eato appeals from an order denying his pro se motion to disqualify Judges Jacqueline Hogan Scola and Peter R. Lopez in case numbers F03-2288A and F03-2289A. 1 We treat the instant appeal as a petition for writ of prohibition, see Madura v. Turosienski, 901 So.2d 396, 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (treating the appeal from an order denying a motion to disqualify the trial judge as a petition for writ of prohibition), which we deny finding no abuse of discretion. See King v. State, 840 So.2d 1047,1049 (Fla.2003) (stating that an order denying a motion to disqualify is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(e) (requiring a motion to disqualify be filed “within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion”).

1

. Eato was permitted to represent himself in this case following a Faretta hearing. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 So. 3d 633, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3226, 2009 WL 996323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eato-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack