FREDDIE EDWARDS, 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.
Freddie Edwards appeals his jury trial conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge should have been disqualified due to a familial relationship with a supervising prosecutor. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the trial court improperly denied Edwards's timely disqualification motion by interjecting itself into the motion's sufficiency analysis.
The trial court improperly denied the motion to disqualify. The judge exceeded his authority under Rule 2.330 by attempting to determine the truthfulness of allegations and relying on facts not presented in the motion, when he should have ruled only on the motion's legal sufficiency. The allegations in the motion established that it was timely filed.
[1] A motion to disqualify a judge is legally sufficient if the alleged facts would objectively create a well-founded fear in the moving party that they would not receive a f…
[2] A trial court considering a motion to disqualify must rule only on the legal sufficiency of the motion and cannot pass on the truth of the facts alleged.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A motion to disqualify is legally sufficient if the facts would objectively cause a well-founded fear in the moving party that they would not receive a fair and impartial trial.”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating disqualification motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdwards was charged with a crime and his case was assigned to Judge David Krathen from the trial pool. Two assistant state attorneys assigned to try t…
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 Florida Rule Of Judicial Administration 2.330 cases and more on FLexlaw
DAMOORGIAN, J.
Freddie Edwards appeals his conviction and sentence following a jury trial. We reverse because the trial court improperly denied Edwards’s motion to disqualify the trial judge pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330. We find no merit to appellant’s claim that the trial court improperly denied his motion for judgment of acquittal.
By way of background, Edwards’s criminal case was originally assigned to Judge Marc Gold’s division. Judge David Krathen was selected to try the case from the trial pool. The two assistant state attorneys assigned to try the case were supervised by Judge Krathen’s daughter. Edwards timely filed the motion to disqualify the trial judge on the day he learned of the trial judge’s relationship to the supervising prosecutor. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(e). In considering the motion, Judge Krathen noted that his daughter could not oversee the prosecutors or try the case herself because she was on vacation. The motion was denied on the ground that it was untimely.
Review of the denial of a motion to disqualify is de novo. Chamberlain v. State, 881 So. 2d 1087, 1097 (Fla.2004) (citations omitted). A motion to disqualify is legally sufficient if the facts would objectively cause a well-founded fear in the moving party that they would not receive a fair and impartial trial. Zuchel v. State, 824 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The trial court shall rule only on the sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(f).
Here, the trial judge stepped beyond the bounds of Rule 2.330. The judge improperly interjected himself into the motion by attempting to determine the truthfulness of the allegations in the motion and relying on facts not in the motion. See Corie v. City of Riviera Beach, 954 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (objective fear of failing to receive a fair and impartial trial must be viewed from the movant’s perspective).1 Moreover, the allegations in the motion established that the motion was timely.
We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial with a successor judge.
Reversed and Remanded.
KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . The Florida Code of Judicial Conduct and the Supreme Court Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee recommend judicial disqualification when a person related within the third degree to the judge is acting as an attorney or has greater than a de minimis interest in the proceeding. Fla. Code. Jud. Conduct, Canon 3(E)(1)(d)(ii) & (iii) (2007); see also S.Ct. Jud. Ethics Adv. Comm., Op. 06-26 (2006); S.Ct. Jud. Ethics Adv. Comm., Op. 01-05 (2001); Comm. on Std. of Conduct Gov. Judges, Op. 91-17 (1991); Comm. on Std. of Conduct Gov. Judges, Op. 82-17 (1982). An attorney who supervises trial counsel has greater than a de minimis interest in the proceeding.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Flavio Santisteban v. State, 72 So. 3d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…was technically insufficient at the time it was presented. Even if it were sufficient, we conclude that the issue raised did not require disqualification. The standard of review of the denial of a motion to disqualify is de novo. Edwards v. State, 976 So. 2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). A motion to disqualify is governed by the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330. One of the technical requirements of the rule is that a motion to disqualify shall “be sworn to by the par…
-
Tatyana Nudel v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 52 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…clude Ice from proceeding in the foreclosure division. Judge Sasser is presently the only judge presiding in the foreclosure division. We review de novo the legal sufficiency of the motions to disqualify that were filed below. See Edwards v. State, 976 So. 2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Ex parte communications regarding purely administrative, non-substantive matters, such as scheduling, do not require disqualification. See Rose v. State, 601 [*695] So. 2d 1181, 1183 (Fla.1992) (“[A] judge should not enga…
-
Carter v. State, 138 So. 3d 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…uded offense. The court denied Carter’s motion as legally insufficient. After a jury trial, Carter was found guilty of attempted felony murder and arson. On appeal, the denial of a motion to disqualify a judge is reviewed de novo. Edwards v. State, 976 So. 2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(f): The judge against whom an initial motion to disqualify ... is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion, and shall not pass on the tru…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chamberlain v. State, 881 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2004)
- Zuchel v. State, 824 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Corie v. City OF Riviera Beach, 954 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)