ROBERT SCOTT HILL, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE MARK A. SPEISER, JUDGE, 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
A judge who attempts to refute charges of partiality by passing on the truth of facts alleged in a disqualification motion exceeds his proper scope of inquiry and must disqualify himself.
A judge presented with a motion for disqualification must not pass on the truth of the facts alleged or adjudicate the question of disqualification, and attempting to refute charges of partiality establishes grounds for disqualification.
[1] A judge who attempts to refute charges of partiality by passing on the truth of facts alleged in a disqualification motion exceeds the proper scope of inquiry and must di…
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“a judge who is presented with a motion for his disqualification 'shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged nor adjudicate the question of disqualification'”
The court quoted Bundy v. Rudd to establish the controlling legal standard for judicial disqualification proceedings.
Petitioner Hill filed a motion for disqualification against Judge Speiser in the 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida.…
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 Legal Sufficiency Of Allegations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant the petition and do so on the authority of Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla.1978), from which case we quote the following excerpt:
Regardless of whether respondent ruled correctly in denying the motion for disqualification as legally insufficient, our rules clearly provide, and we have repeatedly held, that a judge who is presented with a motion for his disqualification “shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged nor adjudicate the question of disqualification.” Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.230(d); see, e.g., Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577, 140 So. 459 (1932); Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519 (1928); Theo. Hirsch Co. v. McDonald Furniture Co., 94 Fla. 185, 114 So. 517 (1927). When a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he has then exceeded the proper scope of his inquiry and on that basis alone established grounds for his disqualification.
Accordingly, the writ of prohibition must issue directing respondent to disqualify himself in all proceedings presently pending against the petitioner. We assume, however, that the formal issuance of the writ will be unnecessary. The chief judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit shall assign another judge within the circuit to preside over the proceedings against petitioner. Petitioner’s motion for clarification and in the alternative bond is denied as moot.
HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Townsend v. State, 564 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…and verdict but prior to the sentencing hearing, requesting the judge to recuse himself only from the sentencing hearing. When presented with a motion to disqualify, the judge may only pass upon the legal sufficiency of the motion. Hill v. Speiser, 536 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The judge, here, not only did not rule on the sufficiency of the motion, but proceeded to debate with the filing attorney the allegations contained in the motion in violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.230. Bundy v.…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Sanford Freed, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1978)
- Emelio Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1928)
- Vazquez v. Ailyn M. Rebaza Smith (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577 (Fla. 1932)
- Theo. Hirsch Co. v. McDonald Furniture Co., 94 Fla. 185 (Fla. 1927)