Court Opinion

ID: 9904380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:34:39.231295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:47.605263
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                      FIFTH DISTRICT

                                      NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                      FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                      DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

A.L.P., A CHILD,

            Petitioner,
v.                                         Case No. 5D22-1566
                                           LT Case Nos. 2021-78-CJMA
                                                        2020-65-CJMA
STATE OF FLORIDA,

          Respondent.
________________________________/

Opinion filed July 15, 2022

Petition for Writ of Prohibition,
Joan Anthony, Respondent Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender,
and Kelly M. Traynor, and Craig R.
Atack, Assistant Public Defenders,
St. Augustine, for Petitioner.

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

PER CURIAM.
      A.L.P. petitions this court for a writ of prohibition following the denial of

his motion to disqualify the presiding judge. We conclude that the motion to

disqualify was legally sufficient and, accordingly, we grant the writ.

      A party may seek disqualification of an assigned trial judge when the

party reasonably 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. Gen.

Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(e)(1). “To be legally sufficient the motion to

disqualify must establish a ‘well-grounded fear on the part of the movant that

he will not receive a fair hearing,’ and such fear must be objective rather than

subjective.” Dumas v. State, 331 So. 3d 307, 308 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)

(quoting Lynch v. State, 2 So. 3d, 47, 78 (Fla. 2008)). Here, the motion to

disqualify alleged that the trial judge made specific comments, before

evidence was ever introduced in the case, that would put a reasonably

prudent person in well-founded fear of not receiving a fair or impartial

hearing. While a trial judge may form mental impressions and opinions

during the course of a hearing, he or she may not, as it appears the presiding

judge did here, prejudge the case. E.g., id. (citing Minaya v. State, 118 So.

3d 926, 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)). We grant the writ of prohibition and

remand this case for assignment to a different judge.

      PETITION GRANTED.

EVANDER, WALLIS, and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
                                        2