Case Name: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF TAMPA, Petitioner, v. Connie BURTON, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-03-24
Citations: 873 So. 2d 356
Docket Number: No. 2D03-995
Parties: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF TAMPA, Petitioner, v. Connie BURTON, Respondent.
Judges: SALCINES, J., Concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 873
Pages: 356–359

Head Matter:
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF TAMPA, Petitioner, v. Connie BURTON, Respondent.
No. 2D03-995.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
March 24, 2004.
Rehearing Denied May 17, 2004.
J. Frazier Carraway, Astrid Hapanow-icz, and Cheryl J. Lister of Saxon, Gilmore, Carraway, Gibbons, Lash & Wilcox, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioner.
Guy M. Burns, Jonathan S. Coleman, and Zachary D. Messa of Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, P.A., Tampa, for Respondent.

Opinion:
WALLACE, Judge.
The Tampa Housing Authority seeks certiorari review of the circuit court's order denying its petition for writ of prohibition. The petition for writ of prohibition had sought to disqualify the county judge from further proceedings in litigation to evict a tenant of the Housing Authority. We treat the petition for writ of certiorari as an appeal from the circuit court and affirm.
In Hillsborough County Court, the Housing Authority obtained a favorable jury verdict in the eviction trial of Connie Burton, a resident of public housing in Tampa. When ruling on Burton's motion for a new trial, the county judge denied the motion on the grounds asserted but ordered a new trial on his own initiative based on his personal observation that one juror was "consistently asleep in the jury box during the presentation of evidence" and that "to allow the jury verdict to stand would be a manifest injustice." The trial record did not contain any mention by either party or the judge of a sleeping juror. The Housing Authority filed a motion to disqualify the county judge, accompanied by affidavits of representatives of the Housing Authority who were present during the trial but did not observe the juror sleeping. The Housing Authority feared judicial prejudice or bias because the county judge did not raise the issue of juror misconduct until after the trial's conclusion, even though such misconduct could have been cured by seating an alternate juror during the trial. The county judge denied the motion.
The Housing Authority filed a petition for writ of prohibition in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit seeking to direct the county judge to disqualify himself. Ruling that the Housing Authority's motion lacked sufficient facts alleging prejudice or bias, the circuit court denied the petition.
The order denying the Housing Authority's petition for writ of prohibition concluded the original proceeding in the circuit court. As such, the order is an appealable final order. See Harris v. Culbreath, 818 So.2d 563, 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Loftis v. State, 682 So.2d 632, 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); State v. Brown, 527 So.2d 207, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 21.4 (2003 ed. West Group); but see State v. Shaw, 643 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Accordingly, we treat the Housing Authority's petition for writ of certiorari as a timely filed notice of appeal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c).
For the county judge ruling on the motion, the circuit court entertaining the petition for writ of prohibition, and this court on direct appeal, the sole issue is the legal sufficiency of the Housing Authority's motion to disqualify without regard to proof of prejudice or bias. See Roberts v. State, 840 So.2d 962, 968-69 (Fla.2002). "A motion to disqualify shall show . that the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge.... " Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.160(d)(1); see also § 38.10, Fla. Stat. (2002). A motion is legally sufficient when the facts alleged, taken as true, would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. Thompson v. State, 759 So.2d 650, 659 (Fla.2000); Peterson v. Asklipious, 833 So.2d 262, 263-64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The alleged facts must be "germane to the judge's undue bias, prejudice or sympathy." Dragovich v. State, 492 So.2d 350, 352 (Fla.1986). Adverse rulings, by themselves, whether they are correct or incorrect, are not legally sufficient grounds upon which to base a motion to disqualify a judge for prejudice or bias. Thompson, 759 So.2d at 659; Areizaga v. Spicer, 841 So.2d 494, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
Based upon our de novo review of the motion and supporting affidavits, the gravamen of the Housing Authority's fear of prejudice or bias was that the new trial order lacked a basis in law and fact. The Housing Authority did not allege facts relating to the county judge's personal prejudice or bias. A disqualifying prejudice does not result "merely from the fact that the judge has ruled adversely to the party who seeks to disqualify him." Wilson v. Renfroe, 91 So.2d 857, 860 (Fla.1956). The circuit court's order denying the petition for writ of prohibition was not in error, and we affirm.
Affirmed.
SALCINES, J., Concurs.
VILLANTI, J., Dissents with opinion.