JOSEPH H. MURPHY, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Murphy appealed an interlocutory order denying his motion to reconsider an arrest warrant and bail bond rulings issued by a magistrate who later disqualified himself. The court held that while a successor judge may reconsider a disqualified judge's rulings on their merits, Murphy failed to raise any factual or legal challenges to the warrant or bail amounts, seeking only blanket vacation based on disqualification.
A party is not entitled to automatic vacation of all prior orders entered by a disqualified judge, but only to reconsideration on the legal and factual merits of such orders. Murphy's motion failed because he did not challenge the arrest warrant's probable cause basis or the bail amounts' excessiveness on the merits.
[1] A successor judge may reconsider and vacate or amend prior factual and legal rulings made by a disqualified judge upon a timely motion for reconsideration.
[2] A motion for reconsideration of prior rulings by a disqualified judge must address the legal or factual merits of those rulings.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“[p]rior factual and legal rulings ... may be reconsidered and vacated or amended by a successor judge based upon a motion for reconsideration”
Establishes the legal principle that a successor judge may reconsider orders of a disqualified predecessor when a timely motion is filed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA magistrate issued an arrest warrant against Murphy and set bail bonds of $500,000 and $100,000 on two grand theft charges. The magistrate subsequent…
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 Reconsideration Of Prior Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Joseph H. Murphy, Jr. from an interlocutory order denying the defendant’s motion to reconsider two orders entered by a prior magistrate in the case, to wit: (a) an arrest warrant issued against the defendant, and (b) a bail bond on two grand theft charges stated in the warrant in the amount of $500,000 and $100,000 respectively. The prior magistrate granted a defense motion to disqualify himself after issuing these orders, and the present magistrate was substituted therefor; no information has been filed in the case. We treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari, see Barber v. McKenzie, 562 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 288 (Fla.1991), and deny the petition.
The law is well settled that where a judge is disqualified in a ease, “[p]rior factual and legal rulings ... may be reconsidered and vacated or amended by a successor judge based upon a motion for reconsideration” which, as here, is otherwise timely filed, Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.160(h).
The defendant in the instant case, however, did not seek a reconsideration on the factual or legal merits of the subject arrest warrant or bail-bond rulings. In his motion for reconsideration, the defendant makes no contention that the subject arrest warrant was issued without probable cause or was otherwise legally defective as to form, see § 901.02, Fla.Stat. (1991); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.121(a), or that the bail bonds were set in an excessive amount and should be reduced. See § 903.046, Fla. Stat. (1991); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.131(b)(1)(E); Good v. Wille, 382 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
Instead, the defendant urged as his sole ground for vacating the subject rulings that the prior magistrate was disqualified to sit in the case based on facts which preceded these rulings, and, consequently, all prior orders in the cause should be vacated, quite apart from the legal or factual merits of such rulings. We cannot agree. A party is not entitled to a vacation of all prior orders entered in the cause by a disqualified judge, but only to a reconsideration on the legal and factual merits of such orders. Because no such reconsideration was sought in this case, the petition for a writ of certiorari must be denied. This ruling, however, shall be without prejudice to the defendant to amend his motion for reconsideration to request that the arrest warrant and bail rulings be reconsidered based on their legal or factual merits.
Certiorari denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 689 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…t that time, defense counsel did not raise any issue as to whether the juiy was tainted. Therefore, Williams' contention on appeal, that the predecessor judge's rulings improperly affected the composition of the juiy, is waived. See Murphy v. State, 627 So. 2d 51, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), review denied, 637 So. 2d 236 (Fla.1994). . A witness testified that in the vicinity of the body “there was an object that appeared to be like a wallet, which I asked my wife to motion to the older lady [victim’s mother] to…
-
Hirschhorn v. Avondale FUNDING.COM, 933 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…d on the judge’s recusal upon the appellants’ request after the final judgment was entered. At most, the previously entered judgment was merely voidable and not void. Schlesinger v. Chemical Bank, 707 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Murphy v. State, 627 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Barber v. MacKenzie, 562 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Appellants had to move for reconsideration of the already entered final judgment, which they did not. See Murphy. A subsequent challenge based upon the voidness of the judgm…
Authorities Cited
- Barber v. Honorable Mary Ann MacKENZIE, 562 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Finlason v. Finlason, 382 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Good v. Wille, 382 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)