LLOYD P. BREWER, III
v.
JOHN HUGHES, ET AL.
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.
The court granted two consolidated petitions for writs of prohibition seeking to disqualify a trial court judge in criminal and related civil matters. The trial judge violated the rule governing initial disqualification motions by implicitly relying on factual assertions from a Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opinion that contradicted the allegations in the disqualification motions, rather than limiting review to legal sufficiency.
The court granted the petitions for writs of prohibition and disqualified the trial judge. When reviewing an initial motion to disqualify, a judge may determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion and may not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. By referencing the JEAC opinion with its contrary factual assertions, the trial judge impermissibly considered the merits rather than legal sufficiency and facts must be viewed from the petitioner's perspective.
[1] A judge ruling on an initial motion to disqualify may only determine the legal sufficiency of the motion and cannot pass on the truth of the facts alleged.
[2] When reviewing an initial motion to disqualify, a judge cannot comment on the merits of the case or consider facts outside the allegations of bias or prejudice.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioners filed motions to disqualify the trial judge. The trial judge sought and obtained an opinion from the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committe…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Before this Court are two petitions for writs of prohibition seeking to disqualify the trial court judge in a criminal matter and a related civil matter. We sua sponte consolidate the petitions.1 For the reasons set forth below, we grant the petitions. It is well-established that judges may not comment on the merits or otherwise look outside the allegations of bias or prejudice when reviewing an initial motion to disqualify. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(h) (“The judge against whom an initial motion to disqualify . . . is directed may determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged.”); see also Messianu v. Pigna, 180 So. 3d 229, 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (holding that the rule governing an initial motion for disqualification “requires the trial court to determine only if the motion is legally sufficient; the trial court may not consider whether the factual assertions of the motion are true”) (citing Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978)). The parties do not dispute that the trial judge sought and obtained an opinion from the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee (“JEAC”) to guide his
decision on disqualification.2 The JEAC opinion issued in response to the judge’s request contained underlying material facts (provided by the inquiring judge) that contradicted certain allegations contained in the motions to disqualify. By referencing this particular JEAC opinion in a footnote in the denial orders, the trial judge implicitly relied on these additional facts in denying the motions to disqualify. Because we are required to view the facts “from the perspective of the petitioner[s]” rather than the trial judge’s view of the facts contained in the JEAC opinion, we are compelled to grant both petitions. See JJN FLB, LLC v. CFLB P’ship, LLC, 283 So. 3d 922, 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (quoting Michaud-Berger v. Hurley, 607 So. 2d 441, 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)). Petitions granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Arvand Lori Amini v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
-
Hedberg v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
-
Laurence v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Sanford Freed, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1978)
- Michaud-Berger v. Honorable Daniel T.K. Hurley, 607 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Cisneros v. Guinand, 298 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Liz C. Messianu, Esq. v. Jannette Billot Pigna, 180 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)