Opinion ID: 2354900
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scheduling conflict

Text: In addressing Mr. Perroni's points on appeal, I cannot agree with the majority's analysis. The majority considers the threshold issue as a question whether Mr. Perroni disobeyed Judge Fox's scheduling order. Here, there is no doubt that Mr. Perroni did not appear for Mr. Ross's February 11, 2003, trial. That fact does not appear to be in dispute, and Mr. Perroni's non-appearance goes to the heart of his second point on appeal involving his alleged contempt. However, the troubling facts surrounding Mr. Perroni's non-appearance give rise to his first point on appeal: whether Judge Fox should have recused. The majority views this point on appeal as superfluous and fails to address it. I view the recusal issue as the threshold issue in the case because if this court concludes that Judge Fox should have recused, then he should not have presided over Mr. Perroni's contempt hearing.