RAMON SAN MARTIN, 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.
Ramon San Martin appeals his convictions for burglary with assault while armed, home invasion with a firearm, and kidnapping with a weapon. The court reverses because the trial judge created an impermissible adversarial relationship with defense counsel by commenting on the merits of a disqualification motion, violating the judge's duty to remain impartial.
The trial judge erred and should have recused himself because his comment placed him in an impermissible adversarial position with defense counsel, thereby violating the standards governing judicial disqualification and creating an intolerable adversary atmosphere.
[1] A judge commits reversible error by assuming an adversarial position with regard to defense counsel, even if the motion for disqualification could have been otherwise den…
[2] A judge exceeds the proper scope of inquiry and establishes grounds for disqualification when they look beyond the legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and atte…
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“[w]hen a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he has then exceeded the proper scope of his inquiry and on that basis alone established grounds for his disqualification.”
Establishes the legal standard that judges cannot attempt to refute disqualification charges without exceeding their proper scope of inquiry
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSan Martin filed two motions for disqualification of the trial judge, asserting the judge was prejudiced against his defense counsel. During an on-the…
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 Grounds For Disqualification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ramon San Martin appeals from his conviction for burglary with an assault while armed with a firearm, home invasion with a firearm, _ and kidnapping with a weapon. We reverse.
Both before and after the trial the Defendant filed Motions for Disqualification of the trial judge, the first of which contended that the Defendant would not receive a fair trial on account of alleged prejudice of the trial judge against his attorney. Notwithstanding the,fact that each of the-two Motions for Disqualification filed by .the Defendant could have been appropriately denied, (the first on the merits and the second due to untimeliness), the trial judge committed error by not recusing himself after he assumed an adversarial position with regard to defense counsel.1 During an on-the-record discussion on the first day of trial, the trial judge stated the following to defense counsel:
“You know, you make these assumptions all the time here. Why did he show it to her for a half hour, okay, the motion you filed the other day, filled with your own personal convictions.”
The “motion” referred to by the trial judge was the Motion for Disqualification filed by the Defendant and subsequently denied by the trial judge before the trial commenced.
This Court has previously explained that “[wjhen a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he has then exceeded the proper scope of his inquiry and on that basis alone established grounds for his disqualification.” Management Corp. of America, Inc. v. Grossman, 396 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (quoting Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla.1978)). In the instant case, the trial judge’s comment that defense counsel’s initial Motion for Disqualification was filled with defense counsel’s personal convictions placed the trial judge in the same adversarial position with regard to defense counsel that courts have condemned on. many occasions. See Hill v. Feder, 564 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Gieseke v. Moriarty, 471 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Management Corp. of America, 396 So. 2d at 1169-70. The trial judge’s comment thus created the “intolerable adversary atmosphere” that, according to the Florida Supreme Court, the rules governing the disqualification of trial judges are designed to prevent. See Management Corp. of America, 396 So. 2d at 1169-70. Accordingly, we reverse the Defendant’s convictions and remand this cause for-, a new trial before another judge.
Reversed.
. For the sake of clarity, we note that appellate counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in this appeal did not participate in the trial sub judice and were not the trial attorneys with whom this Court found that Judge Pineiro had an adversarial relationship.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Scharlepp, 255 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Leonel Bonilla v. State, 864 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. On the authority of San Martin v. State, 820 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), the conviction below is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial before another judge.…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Sanford Freed, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1978)
- Mgmt. Corp. OF Am., Inc. v. Hon. Rhea Pincus Grossman, 396 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- C.J. v. State, 471 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Gieseke v. The Honorable Estella May Moriarty, 471 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Hill v. The Honorable Richard Y. Feder, 564 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)