Case Name: Andrew HOO'HING, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-01-04
Citations: 917 So. 2d 1009
Docket Number: No. 4D05-4663
Parties: Andrew HOO’HING, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: STONE, WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 917
Pages: 1009–1009

Head Matter:
Andrew HOO’HING, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 4D05-4663.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan. 4, 2006.
Johnny L. McCray, Jr. of Law Offices of Johnny L. McCray, Jr., P.A., Pompano Beach, for petitioner.
No appearance required for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In 5-H Corp. v. Padovano, 708 So.2d 244, 248 (Fla.1997), the supreme court wrote that the fact that an attorney reports "perceived judicial unprofessional-ism" to the Judicial Qualifications Commission "is legally insufficient to support judicial disqualification," when sought by the reporting attorney. Applying 5-H Corp. to this case, we deny the petition for writ of prohibition. The fact that the defense attorney has gone public with his complaints about the judge does not remove this case from the rule of 5-H Corp. This case does not fall under the exceptions to the rule that the supreme court identified in 5-H Corp. See id. at 248 n. 12. Those exceptions involve judicial conduct that occurred in addition to the reporting of the case to the JQC. No such judicial conduct concerning petitioner's defense attorney was alleged in this case.
STONE, WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.