State v. Levine

655 So. 2d 1258, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5780, 1995 WL 322573
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 31, 1995
DocketNo. 95-1024
StatusPublished

This text of 655 So. 2d 1258 (State v. Levine) 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
State v. Levine, 655 So. 2d 1258, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5780, 1995 WL 322573 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In February of 1994, a circuit judge sitting in the juvenile division of the Dade County circuit court entered a waiver order under [1259]*1259section 39.052(2), Florida Statutes (1993), transferring a child, Del Rey, for criminal prosecution to the criminal division of the circuit court, where the action is now pending. See State v. Del Rey, 643 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The juvenile has now filed a motion, purportedly under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.140, to set aside the waiver order on grounds that it was procured by fraud or misrepresentation. The particular juvenile division circuit judge who entered the waiver has, on his own motion, set that motion for hearing. In this proceeding, we grant the state’s application to preclude him from doing so.1

As we clearly indicated in the prior appearance of this case in State v. Del Rey, 643 So.2d at 1146, its pendency in the criminal division renders it inappropriate and improper for any judge but the individual presiding over the criminal proceeding itself to rule upon the issues presented. See Iglesias v. State, 599 So.2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Johnson v. State, 379 So.2d 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), cert, denied, 388 So.2d 1114 (Fla.1980); State v. D.R.S., 344 So.2d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). See generally State v. Gary, 609 So.2d 1291, 1294 (Fla.1992) (“the interests of justice require a rule designed to inhibit trial courts from engaging in a ‘ping-pong game’ by transferring a case back and forth, thereby jeopardizing the rights of parties and undermining public confidence in the judicial function”).

Accordingly, certiorari is granted and the order setting the cause before the respondent judge is quashed.2

Petition granted.

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

Related

In Interest of Peterson
364 So. 2d 98 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Johnson v. State
379 So. 2d 704 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
State v. Gary
609 So. 2d 1291 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
State v. Del Rey
643 So. 2d 1146 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
State v. D. R. S.
344 So. 2d 317 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Iglesias v. State
599 So. 2d 248 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
655 So. 2d 1258, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5780, 1995 WL 322573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-levine-fladistctapp-1995.