Court Opinion

ID: 9902516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:18:14.693106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:53.540970
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                       Case No. 5D23-1986
                    LT Case No. 2020-CF-1422
                  _____________________________

DEVIN TOCCO,

    Petitioner,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Respondent.
                  _____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition,
Daniel B. Merritt, Jr., Respondent Judge.

Debra B. Tuomey, of Debra B. Tuomey, Attorney at Law, LLC,
Weeki Wachee, for Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh
Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for
Respondent.

                        October 27, 2023

WALLIS, J.

     Devin Tocco (Petitioner) seeks a writ of prohibition to
disqualify the Honorable Daniel B. Merritt, Jr. from presiding over
his criminal case following events at a pretrial hearing on May 11,
2023. We find that Petitioner has established a well-founded fear
that he will not receive a fair trial and grant the petition.
     Petitioner was charged with Driving While Under The
Influence—Third Offense Within Ten Years and Reckless
Driving. At three points during the litigation of this case, the
parties    approached   the   court    with    potential    plea
agreements. Each time, the judge rejected the proposed plea
agreements. Petitioner subsequently moved to disqualify him
from presiding over the case. The judge denied the motion as
legally insufficient.

     As a result of those events, Petitioner filed with this Court a
petition seeking a writ of prohibition in case number 5D23-
1454. 1 While that case was pending before our Court, the May 11,
2023, pretrial hearing was held before the trial judge. During that
hearing, the judge took it upon himself to address Petitioner’s
prohibition petition. Specifically, he commented that some
relevant portions of the record had not been transmitted to this
court. After some back and forth with each counsel in the case, the
judge directed the assistant state attorney to supplement the
record with this court with specific transcripts from prior hearings
the judge deemed relevant to the prohibition proceeding.

     After the May 11, 2023, hearing, Petitioner filed a second
motion to disqualify the judge, arguing inter alia that he
improperly injected himself into the pending prohibition
proceeding by directing the State to file transcripts. The judge
denied the second motion. Appellant thereafter filed the instant
petition seeking a writ of prohibition directing the judge to
disqualify himself from presiding over Petitioner’s criminal trial
and sentencing.

     We find Petitioner has established facts that would place a
reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and
impartial trial. See Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1087 (Fla.
1983). Specifically, instead of responding to the petition in this
court as authorized by Rule 9.100, the judge attempted to
participate in the prohibition proceedings by directing the
assistant state attorney to supplement the record in this court. We
conclude that this type of extra-record involvement by the judge in

    1 That petition was denied by order of this Court dated May

16, 2023.

                                 2
the prohibition proceeding after rendition of the order denying the
motion for disqualification is both unauthorized and would put a
“reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and
impartial trial.” See Livingston, 441 So. 2d at 1087.

     In fairness, it appears the trial judge was attempting to
“clarify the status of the record.” See Pilkington v. Pilkington, 182
So. 3d 776, 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“The judge may comment
factually on what transpired during relevant proceedings when
ruling upon a motion to disqualify.”); Niebla v. State, 832 So. 2d
887, 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (holding trial court was “merely
stating the status of the record” when denying motion to
disqualify). But while this Court has recognized a trial judge’s
authority to clarify the status of the record, we decline to extend
that authority beyond rendition of the order denying the motion to
disqualify.

      Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition.

    PETITION GRANTED; WRIT OF PROHIBITION ISSUED.

EISNAUGLE and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                                 3