Rosado v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rosado v. State

76 So. 3d 1140, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 180, 2012 WL 75254

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 11, 2012

DocketNo. 4D11-3773

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 So. 3d 1140 (Rosado 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

Rosado v. State, 76 So. 3d 1140, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 180, 2012 WL 75254 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Elias Rosado petitions this court for a writ of prohibition seeking to disqualify the trial judge from presiding over Bro-ward County case numbers 06-10189CF10A and 06-18577CF10A because the judge did not timely rule on Rosado’s motion for disqualification. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(j); Tableau Fine Art Group, Inc. v. Jacoboni, 853 So.2d 299 (Fla.2003). We grant the petition.

Rosado moved to disqualify the judge on August 4, 2011. A copy of the motion was served on the judge. It was received by the circuit court clerk for filing on August 8, 2011. Even if the judge did not receive the motion at the time it was filed, the record reflects that the judge has been aware of the motion since at least September 15, 2011, when he denied petitioner’s request for reassignment of the case based on the judge’s failure to timely rule on the motion to disqualify. See Tobkin v. State, 889 So.2d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

In response to an order to show cause from this court, the state agrees that the motion to disqualify has not been ruled on and pursuant to rule 2.330(j) it should be deemed granted and these cases reassigned.

WARNER, GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Elias Rosado petitions this court for a writ of prohibition seeking to disqualify the trial judge from presiding over Bro-ward County case numbers 06-10189CF10A and 06-18577CF10A because the judge did not timely rule on Rosado’s motion for disqualification. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(j); Tableau Fine Art Group, Inc. v. Jacoboni, 853 So.2d 299 (Fla.2003). We grant the petition.

Rosado moved to disqualify the judge on August 4, 2011. A copy of the motion was served on the judge. It was received by the circuit court clerk for filing on August 8, 2011. Even if the judge did not receive the motion at the time it was filed, the record reflects that the judge has been aware of the motion since at least September 15, 2011, when he denied petitioner’s request for reassignment of the case based on the judge’s failure to timely rule on the motion to disqualify. See Tobkin v. State, 889 So.2d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

In response to an order to show cause from this court, the state agrees that the motion to disqualify has not been ruled on and pursuant to rule 2.330(j) it should be deemed granted and these cases reassigned.

WARNER, GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 So. 3d 1140, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 180, 2012 WL 75254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosado-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack