State v. Perez Jr.

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 9, 2016·No. 16-1921·Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed November 9, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D16-1921

Lower Tribunal No. 09-30724 B

The State of Florida,

Petitioner,

vs.

Adolfo Perez, Jr., et al., Respondents.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jeffrey R. Geldens, Assistant Attorney General, for petitioner.

Daniel Tibbitt, for respondents.

Before SUAREZ, C.J., and ROTHENBERG and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

SUAREZ, C.J.

Because we find the trial judge should have disqualified himself, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition. We conclude that the motion for disqualification was legally sufficient, and that the trial judge's comments were

such that the facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. See Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1087 (Fla. 1983). Once a basis for disqualification has been established, prohibition is both an appropriate and necessary remedy. Brown v. Rowe, 96 Fla. 289, 118 So. 9 (1928). Accordingly, the writ of prohibition must issue and we direct the trial judge to disqualify himself in all proceedings presently pending in lower court case number F09-30724B. We therefore grant the petition for writ of prohibition, but being confident that the trial judge will withdraw, we conclude that we need not formally issue the writ.

Petition granted.

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

State v. Perez Jr., (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

State v. Perez Jr. (State v. Perez Jr.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Livingston v. State
441 So. 2d 1083 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1983)
Brown v. Rowe
118 So. 9 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)