INES COLLEEN ROBINSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 presented with a motion for disqualification must limit his inquiry to the legal sufficiency of the motion and may not pass on the truth of the facts alleged or adjudicate the question of disqualification.
[1] When a trial judge presented with a motion for disqualification exceeds the proper scope of his inquiry by passing on the truth of facts alleged or attempting to refute c…
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.' 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.”
Florida Supreme Court holding in Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978), cited by the court to establish the standard for judicial review of disqualification motions.
Robinson filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge presiding over her case. The trial court denied the motion as legally insufficient in an eight-p…
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 Motion To Disqualify cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
INES COLLEEN ROBINSON,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 5D19-2372
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
________________________________/
Opinion filed August 28, 2019
Petition for Writ of Prohibition, Howard M. Maltz, Respondent Judge.
William Mallory Kent, of Kent & McFarland, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Ines Colleen Robinson seeks a writ of prohibition following the denial of her motion to disqualify the judge presiding over her case. Prohibition is the proper procedure for appellate review to test the validity of a motion to disqualify. Time Warner Entm’t Co. v. Baker, 647 So. 2d 1070, 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The trial court denied Robinson’s motion to disqualify as legally insufficient in an eight-page order. That was error. As the Florida Supreme Court held in Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978):
2 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.” 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.
(Citations omitted).
The trial court’s order denying Robinson’s motion to disqualify establishes that the judge failed to limit his inquiry to a determination of the sufficiency of the motion to disqualify. This requires his disqualification. Accordingly, we grant Robinson’s petition for writ of prohibition.
PROHIBITION GRANTED.
ORFINGER, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Sanford Freed, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1978)
- Time Warner Ent. Co., L.P. v. Hon. Joseph P. Baker, 647 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)