Opinion ID: 1931059
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Judge Robert Perry's Alleged Conflict of Interest

Text: Wright next claims he was denied due process because the trial judge, Judge Perry, now deceased, was also a special deputy sheriff at the time of trial and, as such, was biased. On this issue, the trial court found: There was testimony that the trial [judge] may have been issued a card of some sort by the Putnam County Sheriff. However, there was no proof submitted that his name appeared on a list kept by the Sheriff's Office. Additionally, if one had been issued, it carried with it no privileges and meant nothing. There is not even a suggestion in the record that the trial judge ever used any such card in any manner, even if he had one. There is also nothing to even suggest that having any such card affected his rulings or conduct in any manner. As to the trial judge's disciplinary problems, there is absolutely nothing to show his work or his status had any bearing on the 3.850 hearing and his ruling herein. Wright argues that Judge Perry's status, in and of itself, indicates that Wright was denied a fair and impartial judge during his trial. However, Wright presents no evidence that Judge Perry was not fair and impartial. Wright also asserts that Judge Perry's status, in and of itself, would warrant disqualification. He argues that had he known of this information at the time of trial, he could have successfully moved to disqualify Judge Perry. A motion to disqualify a judge must be well-founded and contain facts germane to the judge's undue bias, prejudice, or sympathy. Jackson v. State, 599 So.2d 103, 107 (Fla.1992). Wright fails to show that Judge Perry's mere possession of a special deputy card resulted in partiality and bias and would have required the granting of a motion to disqualify. This record does not demonstrate that Judge Perry labored under a conflict of interest.