JEFFREY R. HASTINGS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that a motion to recuse based solely on prior adverse rulings is legally insufficient and that the motion to enforce the plea agreement is procedurally barred as a successive post-conviction motion.
Hastings, who pled guilty in 1974, filed a motion to enforce a plea agreement and a motion to disqualify the trial judge based on prior adverse ruling…
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 Motion To Enforce Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
We withdraw the previous opinion and substitute the following in its place:
This case involves a 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, in the guise of a motion to enforce a plea agreement, and a motion to disqualify the trial judge. Hastings challenges the trial court’s adverse ruling.
In 1974, Hastings pled guilty to escape and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. In 2000, he filed a “Petition/Motion for Specific Performance of Plea Agreement and Enforcement of Plea Agreement.” The trial court had denied three prior motions in which Hastings had raised the same claims. This time Hastings added a motion to recuse the trial judge based on his summary denial of his three prior motions. The trial court noted in its ruling that it had “fully considered the motions, as well as its previous orders denying identical claims.”
Hastings’ motion for the court to recuse itself is legally insufficient because it is based solely upon the trial court’s prior adverse rulings. A trial court’s prior adverse ruling is not a legally sufficient ground upon which to base a motion to disqualify. See Thompson v. State, 759 So. 2d 650 (Fla.2000). Additionally, Hastings’ motion is not sworn to, as required by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160(c).
Hastings’ motion to enforce the plea agreement is procedurally barred as a successive 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. See Doyle v. State, 772 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Hastings has now filed five appeals from five 3.850 rulings in the court below pertaining to the same case. Based on Hastings’ numerous and successive meritless pro se filings, we hold that he is precluded from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions or petitions relating to his conviction and sentence in trial court case 74-179-CF, unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida. See Johnson v. State, 787 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Rahymes v. State, 730 So. 2d 420, 422 (Fla. 5th DCA), cause dismissed, 733 So. 2d 516 (Fla.1999); Davis v. State, 705 So. 2d 133, 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410-411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); see also Lockett v. State, 769 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, C.J., and SAWAYA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hastings v. State, 79 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 2011)…lving his manslaughter convictions and sentences. The Fifth District Court of Appeal, on June 1, 2001, issued an opinion prohibiting Hastings from filing any further pro se filings involving his conviction and sentence for escape. Hastings v. State, 788 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). On January 2, 2008, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued an opinion prohibiting Hastings from filing any further pro se filings involving his convictions and sentences for manslaughter. Hastings v. Krischer, 840 So. 2d 267…
-
Amato v. Winn Dixie Stores/Sedgwick James, 810 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…motion was filed. Our conclusion should not be construed as adopting a per se rule mandating disqualification solely upon the allegation, by itself, that the trial court ruled on a matter without having heard from the other side. Hastings v. State, 788 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Nathanson, 693 So. 2d at 1062-63 (Stone, J., concurring specially); Rives v. Logan, 611 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Gieseke v. Grossman, 418 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Given our ruling on the threshold issue of the moti…
-
Efrain Areizaga v. Spicer, 841 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…e motion to disqualify the judge related solely to adverse rulings made in regard to the motions for contempt. A trial court’s prior adverse rulings are not legally sufficient grounds upon which to base a motion to disqualify. See Hastings v. State, 788 So. 2d 342, 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The order of contempt dated November 19, 2001, is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court to strike those portions of the order finding Mr. Areizaga in contempt of court. The petition for writ…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Thompson v. State, 759 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2000)
- Davis v. State, 705 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Rahymes v. State, 730 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Lockett v. State, 769 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Doyle v. State, 772 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Johnson v. State, 787 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)