MARC MEDIATE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 5th DCA | 2021-11-19
No. 21-2277
Howard, J., Edwards, J., Harris, J., Nardella, J.
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2021)

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.


Holding

A trial judge must be disqualified from hearing a sentence review application when the judge has made statements demonstrating prejudgment of the defendant's character and rehabilitation prospects.


Headnotes

[1] A trial judge must be disqualified from presiding over a case when the judge has made statements demonstrating prejudgment of the defendant's character, rehabilitation pr…

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

Key Quotes

“A motion to disqualify is legally sufficient if the facts alleged—when taken as true and considered objectively—would reasonably cause a litigant to have a well-founded fear that he or she would not receive a fair trial or hearing before the presiding judge.”

Court's statement of the legal standard for disqualification

Facts & Procedural History

Marc Mediate, a juvenile offender, sought a sentence review under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.802. Before hearing the application, the presid…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Nardella

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

MARC MEDIATE,

Petitioner

v. Case No. 5D21-2277 LT Case No. 1986-CF-244 STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

________________________________/

Opinion filed November 19, 2021

Petition for Writ of Prohibition, Richard A. Howard, Respondent Judge.

Michael A. Graves, Public Defender and Edward C. Spaight, Assistant Public Defender, Inverness, for Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Marc Mediate, a juvenile offender, seeks a writ of prohibition following the postconviction court’s order denying his motion to disqualify the

To rule on Petitioner’s application, the postconviction court must consider a non-exhaustive list of factors found in section 921.1402(6), Florida Statutes (2021). Those factors include whether the juvenile offender demonstrates maturity and rehabilitation, whether the juvenile offender remains at the same level of risk to society as he or she did at the time of the initial sentencing, and whether the juvenile offender has shown sincere and sustained remorse for the criminal offense. Before hearing Petitioner’s application, the judge presiding over Petitioner’s postconviction proceedings made several statements about the Petitioner, two of which warrant disqualification. First, the presiding judge stated that the Petitioner is “an older, dedicated unrepentant rapist [who is] driven to sexually offend [and who] has a low possibility of rehabilitation.” Second, the presiding judge

PETITION GRANTED.

EDWARDS, HARRIS, and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
2 presiding judge from hearing his application for a sentence review filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.802. A motion to disqualify is legally sufficient if the facts alleged—when taken as true and considered objectively—would reasonably cause a litigant to have a well-founded fear that he or she would not receive a fair trial or hearing before the presiding judge. See Shuler v. Green Mountain Ventures, Inc., 791 So. 2d 1213, 1215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); see also § 38.10, Fla. Stat. (2021); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(e)(1). We find that Petitioner has met that burden.
3 stated that Petitioner “is and will remain as long as he lives, irredeemably incorrigible.” We find these statements would reasonably cause a litigant to fear that the presiding judge has predetermined the appropriate sentence. Hauter v. State, 287 So. 3d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition and remand this case for assignment to a different judge.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw