Hoo'Hing v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hoo'Hing v. State

917 So. 2d 1009, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1439, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 157

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 4, 2006

DocketNo. 4D05-4663

StatusPublished

This text of 917 So. 2d 1009 (Hoo'Hing 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

Hoo'Hing v. State, 917 So. 2d 1009, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1439, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 157 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In 5-H Corp. v. Padovano, 708 So.2d 244, 248 (Fla.1997), the supreme court wrote that the fact that an attorney reports “perceived judicial unprofessional-ism” to the Judicial Qualifications Commission “is legally insufficient to support judicial disqualification,” when sought by the reporting attorney. Applying 5-H Corp. to this case, we deny the petition for writ of prohibition. The fact that the defense attorney has gone public with his complaints about the judge does not remove this case from the rule of 5-H Corp. This case does not fall under the exceptions to the rule that the supreme court identified in 5-H Corp. See id. at 248 n. 12. Those exceptions involve judicial conduct that occurred in addition to the reporting of the case to the JQC. No such judicial conduct concerning petitioner’s defense attorney was alleged in this case.

STONE, WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In 5-H Corp. v. Padovano, 708 So.2d 244, 248 (Fla.1997), the supreme court wrote that the fact that an attorney reports “perceived judicial unprofessional-ism” to the Judicial Qualifications Commission “is legally insufficient to support judicial disqualification,” when sought by the reporting attorney. Applying 5-H Corp. to this case, we deny the petition for writ of prohibition. The fact that the defense attorney has gone public with his complaints about the judge does not remove this case from the rule of 5-H Corp. This case does not fall under the exceptions to the rule that the supreme court identified in 5-H Corp. See id. at 248 n. 12. Those exceptions involve judicial conduct that occurred in addition to the reporting of the case to the JQC. No such judicial conduct concerning petitioner’s defense attorney was alleged in this case.

STONE, WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

917 So. 2d 1009, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1439, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoohing-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack