CHARLIE BROWN, JR., 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.
A trial judge must rule on a motion for disqualification before resolving any other matters, even if unaware of the pending motion.
Appellant appealed an order denying his habeas corpus petition, arguing the trial court erred by ruling on the petition before a pending motion for di…
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 Disqualify cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant appeals an order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends, among other things, that the trial court erred by raling on his petition prior to ruling on a pending motion for disqualification. We express no opinion on the merits of the appellant’s habeas petition, but agree that the order denying it must be vacated.
A trial judge must first rule on a motion for disqualification before resolving any other matters. See Fuster-Escalona v. Wisotsky, 781 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla.2000); Shah v. Harding, 839 So. 2d 765, 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Loevinger v. Northrup, 624 So. 2d 374, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Once the motion has been filed, no further action can be taken, even if the trial court is not aware of the pending motion. See Loevinger, 624 So. 2d at 375.
In the present case, the motion for disqualification was filed on July 16, 2001. Because of a clerical error, the motion was not placed in the court file and the trial court was not aware of the pending motion or the grounds on which it was based when the court ruled on the habeas petition on July 27, 2001. We note that the trial judge subsequently entered an order of recusal when the matter was brought to his attention. However, the order on the habeas petition must be reversed since it was resolved prior to the pending motion for disqualification. We remand with directions for consideration of the appellant’s petition by a successor judge.
Reversed and Remanded.
WOLF, C.J., ERVIN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoffman v. Crosby, 908 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…2000); Shah v. Harding, 839 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). The circuit court in its appellate capacity should have reversed the order denying the motion for new trial and remanded for the successor judge to reconsider the motion. See Brown v. State, 863 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). “When a trial court fails to act in accord with the statute and procedural rule on a motion to disqualify, an appellate court will vacate a trial court judgment that flows from that error.” Fuster-Escalona, 781 So. 2d at 1065.…
-
Gomez v. State, 900 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…otion to disqualify is pending, the trial court is not authorized to rule on other pending motions; all such motions upon which the trial court rules must be vacated. See Fuster-Escalona v. Wisotsky, 781 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla.2000); Brown v. State, 863 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding that trial court must first rule on recusal motion before resolving any other matters).1 Accordingly, we reverse the ruling on the motion for recusal and on the motions to withdraw plea and to correct sentencing error.…
-
Aquillia T. Wilson v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Fuster-Escalona v. Wisotsky, 781 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2000)
- Eric Loevinger, M.D., & Radiology Assocs. of Tallahassee, P.A. v. A.J. Northrup, 624 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Shah v. Maria-Elena B. Harding, 839 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)