JORGE E. NIEBLA, 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.
Defendant Niebla appeals his convictions and sentence for multiple violent felonies including kidnapping, armed robbery, carjacking, and attempted murder of law enforcement officers. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions and thirteen consecutive life sentences as a habitual violent felony offender, rejecting his challenge to the trial court's disqualification denial.
The trial court was not required to grant the motion to disqualify. A trial court may state the status of the record without being deemed to have prejudged a matter or impermissibly refuted allegations in a disqualification motion. The convictions and sentences are affirmed, and there is no merit to defendant's sufficiency of the evidence argument.
[1] A trial court's statement of the status of the record in response to a motion to disqualify does not constitute an impermissible refutation of the motion's allegations.
[2] A trial judge's recollection of the appropriate sentence at the conclusion of a trial is not evidence of prejudgment, especially in cases involving heinous crimes.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Although it is impermissible for a trial court to refute the charges in a motion to disqualify, MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332, 1339 (Fla.1990), a court is permitted to state the status of the record.”
Establishes the distinction between impermissible refutation of disqualification allegations and permissible statements about the record status
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was convicted of three counts of kidnapping with a weapon, two counts of armed robbery, one count of carjacking, one count of burglary with …
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 Prejudgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals his convictions and sentence for three counts of kidnaping with a weapon, two counts of armed robbery, one count of carjacking, one count of burglary with assault, and six counts of attempted second degree murder of a law enforcement officer. We affirm.
The charges against defendant arose out of a home invasion. The trial court sentenced defendant to thirteen consecutive life terms as a habitual violent felony offender. During the pendency of this appeal, this Court permitted defendant to withdraw his initial brief in order to file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) challenging the imposition of the habitual violent offender sentence and the imposition of thirteen consecutive life terms. During the hearing on defendant’s motion, the trial court asked the prosecutor what the maximum permissible sentence was. As a result of this query, defense counsel filed a motion to disqualify the judge, arguing that the court had prejudged the matter. In the motion, prepared from defense counsel’s recollection and without the aid of a transcript, defense counsel incorrectly alleged that the trial court directed the prosecutor to “figure out” how he could again sentence defendant to consecutive life sentences. At a hearing on the motion, the trial court stated:
Okay. Now, I didn’t prejudge the matter. I sat during the entire trial and determined at that time that consecutive life sentences were appropriate. Motion for disqualification is denied.
Defendant claims that the trial court was required to grant the motion for disqualification after it made the aforementioned statement as the statement constituted an attempt by the court to refute the allegations in the motion. We disagree. Although it is impermissible for a trial court to refute the charges in a motion to disqualify, MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So. 2d 1332, 1339 (Fla.1990), a court is permitted to state the status of the record. Shuler v. Green Mountain Ventures, Inc., 791 So. 2d 1213, 1215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Kowalski v. Boyles, 557 So. 2d 885, 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Here, the trial court was merely stating the status of the record: that he imposed consecutive life sentences after defendant’s trial. That the’ trial judge was able to recall what he thought was the appropriate sentence at the conclusion of the trial is not evidence that he prejudged the matter, particularly given the heinous nature of the crimes involved in this case.
We find no merit in defendant’s argument concerning the sufficiency of the evidence. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 12 So. 3d 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…60, 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Hill, 564 So. 2d at 609; Scholz, 657 So. 2d at 951. We reject the suggestion that the circuit judge was merely acknowledging “the status of the record,” which occurred in Kowalski, 557 So. 2d at 887. Cf. Niebla v. State, 832 So. 2d 887, 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (finding no basis for disqualifying trial judge who classified defendant as a habitual violent offender and imposed 13 consecutive life terms for multiple felonies, where the court allegedly had prejudged the sentencing phase…
-
Diaz v. State, 849 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Niebla v. State, 832 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).…
-
Manuel v. Est. of Lapulapu Manuel (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Honorable Mary Ann MacKENZIE v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1990)
- Shuler v. Green Mountain Ventures, Inc., 791 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Kowalski v. Boyles, 557 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)