DOROTHY J. HAMMOND, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE E.L. EASTMOORE, ETC., RESPONDENT
PER CURIAM.
DENIED.
ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur. DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
DAUKSCH, Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree we should deny the petition for writ of prohibition. The trial judge who recused himself after the first motion for disqualification, Judge Eastmoore, may have acted in a manner differently from the proper way cases are reassigned after recusal, by sending the case to Judge Perry, but that is not a matter for our immediate concern. Perhaps it would have been best for the chief circuit judge to make the reassignment but this court is not concerned with overseeing the day-to-day operation of trial courts’ administration. If petitioner can point to some jurisdictional defect or later show some reversible error then we will intercede.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mickey A. Park v. Dugger, 548 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…to allow him access to certain psychiatric and psychological evaluations of him made by members of the DOC staff. He claimed entitlement to these evaluations under Section 945.10(2), Florida Statutes (1988), and Diaz v. Florida Dep’t of Corrections, 519 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA), appeal dismissed, 525 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1988). We affirm. In sustaining the order, we do not decide whether appellant is entitled to access these records. We decide only that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is not an appropriate r…