MATHEW ANTWON FORREST, 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 the trial court did not err in failing to hold a hearing on discovery violations or in denying an oral motion for disqualification.
The state furnished ballistics reports to the defense prior to trial, and defense counsel made an oral motion for disqualification during trial.…
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 Richardson V. State cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We find no error in the failure of the trial court to hold a hearing pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971), because the record demonstrates that the state furnished the ballistics reports at issue to the defense prior to trial, so there was no discovery violation.
We also reject appellant’s argument that reversal is required due to the trial court’s denial of an ore tenus motion for disqualification.1 The law is well-set- tied that a motion for disqualification must be made in writing, and a request that is only made orally is legally insufficient. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.160(e) (“Any motion for disqualification made during a hearing or trial must be based on facts discovered during the hearing or trial and may be stated on the record, provided that it is also promptly reduced to writing in compliance with subdivision (c) and promptly filed.”); Migliore v. Migliore, 792 So. 2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (noting that writing requirement is mandatory). After the trial court denied the motion for disqualification, defense counsel did not ask the trial court for a continuance to be able to file a written motion. See Tyler v. State, 816 So. 2d 755, 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur. . Although defense counsel asked the court to recuse itself, he actually made a motion for disqualification. Recusal is the process by which a trial court voluntarily removes itself, while disqualification is the process by which a party seeks to remove a judge from the case. See Sume v. State, 773 So. 2d 600, 601-02 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Olegard Sume and Frisner Boyer v. State, 773 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Migliore v. Migliore, 792 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Tyler v. State, 816 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)