PETER J. AURIGEMMA, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 granted a petition for writ of prohibition requiring disqualification of a trial judge from presiding over a Rule 3.850 evidentiary hearing because the judge's husband had a financial business relationship with the defendant's trial counsel whose performance would be evaluated by the judge.
A trial judge must be disqualified when the judge's spouse has an ongoing financial relationship with the defendant's trial counsel whose performance will be evaluated by that judge at an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A trial judge must be disqualified when the judge's spouse maintains an ongoing financial business relationship with the defendant's trial counsel whose performance the j…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAurigemma filed a Rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He sought to disqualify the trial judge based on the allegation …
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 Impartiality cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Peter J. Aurigemma seeks review of an order that denied his motion to disqualify the trial judge from presiding over his upcoming rule 3.850 evidentiary hearing. We grant the petition.
Pending below is Aurigemma’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 wherein he alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The motion to disqualify is based on Aurigem-ma’s allegation that his trial counsel has hired the trial judge’s husband multiple times as an expert witness for his clients in criminal cases. Aurigemma alleges that the trial judge’s husband has benefited financially from his relationship with Auri-gemma’s trial attorney, whose performance will be evaluated by the judge at the evidentiary hearing. This ongoing “business relationship” creates the requisite well-founded fear to support the motion to disqualify. Corte v. City of Riviera Beach, 954 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Betkesda Mem’l Hosp., Inc. v. Cassone, 807 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
Based on the foregoing, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition and direct the Chief Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit to have this case reassigned to a successor judge.
WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. STONE, J., dissents with opinion.
STONE, J.,
dissenting.
In my judgment, the fact that the attorney/witness hired the judge’s spouse in other cases does not mandate recusal of the judge.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reyes v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co., 221 So. 3d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (Lawson, J.) (finding the motion to disqualify untimely because it did "not allege when the purported comment was made, and nothing in the record demonstrates that the motion was timely”). .See Aurigemma v. State, 964 So. 2d 224, 224 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (granting prohibition "based on Aurigemma’s allegation that his trial counsel has hired the trial judge’s husband multiple times as an expert witness for his clients in criminal cases); Corie v. City of Riviera Beach, 954 So…
Authorities Cited
- Corie v. City OF Riviera Beach, 954 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Cassone, 807 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)