MICHAEL CANADY, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE JUDGE THOMAS JOHNSON, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
When a motion to disqualify a judge for prejudice is supported by legally sufficient affidavits alleging facts constituting prejudice, the judge must disqualify himself without adjudicating the truth of those facts.
[1] A trial judge's own assessment of his or her fairness and impartiality is irrelevant to whether a legally sufficient motion to disqualify for prejudice requires recusal;…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The judge presiding shall examine the motion and supporting affidavits to disqualify him for prejudice to determine their legal sufficiency only, but shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged nor adjudicate the question of disqualification. If the motion and affidavits are legally sufficient, the presiding judge shall enter an order disqualifying himself and proceed no further therein.”
Rule 3.230(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, as quoted by the court
Petitioner Michael Canady, charged with first-degree murder and possession of marijuana, filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge pursuant to Flor…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudice Of Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Michael Canady seeks a writ of prohibition prohibiting respondent, the Honorable Thomas Johnson, from presiding over petitioner’s trial on charges of first degree murder and possession of marijuana.
Petitioner brought a motion to disqualify respondent pursuant to Rule 3.230, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 3.230(d) provides in pertinent part: (d) The judge presiding shall examine the motion and supporting affidavits to disqualify him for prejudice to determine their legal sufficiency only, but shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged nor adjudicate the question of disqualification. If the motion and affidavits are legally sufficient, the presiding judge shall enter an order disqualifying himself and proceed no further therein.
We have examined the motions and supporting affidavits and conclude that the combined allegations contained within these documents meet the test of legal sufficiency and therefore the trial judge should have disqualified himself and proceeded no further in this case. See Hayslip v. Douglas, 400 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla.1978); and Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083 (Fla.1983).
We grant and issue the writ of prohibition and direct the respondent judge to recuse himself in this matter. We further instruct the chief judge of the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit to cause this case to be reassigned for trial.
PROHIBITION GRANTED.
DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur. GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs with opinion.
GLICKSTEIN, Judge,
concurring:
I concur with the panel’s conclusion that the petition is legally sufficient. These petitions place conscientious trial judges who believe themselves to be fair and impartial in a difficult position. They must— having been accused of doing or saying something that is interpreted by an accused as evidence of prejudice or pre-judgment— coolly and dispassionately review the legal sufficiency of the accused’s petition to disqualify. There must be a terrible temptation on the part of the trial judge, faced with that situation, to defend his or her fairness. It seems only natural to do so.
Our luxury is being separated from the incident and coolly viewing the record and the law with the assistance of a bright staff attorney. The trial judge has neither advantage.
Our conclusion is not a comment on the fairness of the trial judge, but on the legal sufficiency of the petition.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1983)
- THE Florida BAR v. Sanford Freed, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1978)
- Hayslip v. The Honorable Paul T. Douglas, 400 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)