JESSIE J. EASON, PETITIONER,
v.
WALTER COLBATH, JR., AS CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied a petition for a writ of prohibition against a trial judge, holding that generalized judicial comments about offenses and sentencing policy, not directed at any specific defendant, do not provide a reasonable basis to fear an unfair trial.
Generalized judicial comments about attitudes toward certain offenses and sentencing policy, not directed to any single defendant, do not constitute grounds for a writ of prohibition.
[1] Generalized judicial pronouncements about attitudes toward offenses and sentencing policy, not directed to any specific defendant, do not provide a reasonable basis for a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a public pronouncement by a judge of his attitude regarding certain offenses for which persons will be tried before him and of a policy to be pursued by him regarding sentencing therefor is, at the very least, ill advised”
The court acknowledged that while such pronouncements are ill-advised, they do not necessarily warrant prohibition if generalized and not directed at specific defendants.
A trial judge made quoted comments regarding his attitude toward certain offenses and his sentencing policy for those offenses.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Impartial Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We deny the petition for a writ of prohibition, concluding that the trial judge’s quoted comments were not such “as would form a reasonable basis for a defendant to fear that he would not receive a fair trial.” State ex rel. Shelton v. Sepe, 254 So. 2d 12, 13 (Fla.3d DCA 1971). We also conclude that the trial judge’s quoted statements were merely generalized and not directed to any single defendant appearing before him. Compare State ex rel. La Russa v. Himes, 144 Fla. 145, 197 So. 762 (1940), with State ex rel. Sagonias v. Bird, 67 So. 2d 678 (Fla.1953). See also State ex rel. Gerstein v. Stedman, 233 So. 2d 142 (Fla.3d DCA 1970), opinion adopted, 238 So. 2d 615 (Fla.1970).
Although “a public pronouncement by a judge of his attitude regarding certain offenses for which persons will be tried before him and of a policy to be pursued by him regarding sentencing therefor is, at the very least, ill advised,” Sepe, 254 So. 2d at 13, we have absolutely no reason to doubt that this trial judge is keenly aware of the discretionary nature of an enhanced sentence under the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), and also of the general rule that a refusal to exercise discretion is error. See e.g. Glosson v. Solomon, 490 So. 2d 94 (Fla.3d DCA 1986) (trial court’s announced policy of never setting bail on probation violation charge was in derogation of discretionary provision of bail statute); see also Mank v. Hendrickson, 195 So. 2d 574 (Fla.4th DCA 1967) (“every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge”).
PROHIBITION DENIED.
WARNER, GARRETT and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin v. State, 804 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…; Jernigan v. State, 608 So. 2d 569, 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)(finding that factually unsupported “theory” that the judge was prejudiced against all child abusers was not sufficient to support disqualification). Respondent also cites Eason v. Colbath, 586 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), where this court affirmed the denial of the motion for disqualification, finding that the comments in question were legally insufficient because they were merely generalized and not directed to any single defendant appearing bef…
-
Murray v. Colbath, 586 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. PROHIBITION DENIED. See Eason v. Colbath, 586 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). WARNER; GARRETT and FARMER, JJ., concur.…
-
Jones v. Colbath, 586 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. PROHIBITION DENIED. See Eason v. Colbath, 586 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). WARNER, GARRETT and FARMER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State ex rel. Philip La Russa v. Himes, 144 Fla. 145 (Fla. 1940)
- Glosson v. The Honorable Harold Solomon, 490 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- State ex rel. Sagonias v. Bird, 67 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 1953)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Richard E. Gerstein v. Honorable Carling Stedman, 238 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1970)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Richard E. Gerstein v. Honorable Carling Stedman, 233 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Miles B. Mank II v. Hendrickson, 195 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- State of Fla. ex rel. v. Honorable Alfonso Sepe, 254 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)