ANGELO ZANGHI, 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.
In an indirect criminal contempt case arising from a marital dissolution matter, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the husband's petition for writ of prohibition, finding that his motion to disqualify the circuit judge was both timely and legally sufficient. The court ruled that the judge's prior comments in the marital dissolution case effectively prejudging the contempt case created a well-grounded fear of bias requiring reassignment.
The motion to disqualify was both timely and legally sufficient. The motion was timely because it was filed within ten days of the contempt case's transfer to the judge, and the husband could not have filed earlier since the judge was not presiding over that case until the transfer. The motion was legally sufficient because the judge's comments went beyond mere impressions and created a well-grounded fear of prejudgment on the merits.
[1] A motion to disqualify a judge must be filed within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion.
[2] A party seeking to disqualify a judge need only show a well-grounded fear that they will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 shall be filed within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion and shall be promptly presented to the court for an immediate ruling.”
Establishes the timeliness standard for disqualification motions and shows the husband's motion complied with this requirement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA husband in a marital dissolution case sought to disqualify the circuit judge in an indirect criminal contempt case that was transferred to that judg…
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 Of Case cases and more on FLexlaw
In an indirect criminal contempt case arising from a marital dissolution case, the husband seeks a writ of prohibition following the denial of his verified motion to disqualify the circuit judge. The circuit judge denied the motion, finding that the motion was untimely and legally insufficient. We grant the petition and remand for the clerk to reassign the indirect criminal contempt case to another circuit judge.
The motion was both timely and legally sufficient. “A motion to disqualify shall be filed within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion and shall be promptly presented to the court for an immediate ruling.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(e) (2010). Here, the husband filed the motion within ten days of the date on which the indirect criminal contempt case was transferred to the circuit judge. The husband could not have filed the motion any earlier because the circuit judge was not presiding over the indirect criminal contempt case until the case was transferred to the circuit judge.
As for legal sufficiency, “[wjhile a trial judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of hearing evidence in a case, the judge is not permitted to pre-judge the case.” Kates v. Seidenman, 881 So.2d 56, 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (citations omitted). Here, the circuit judge’s comments in the marital dissolution case, effectively stating that the husband should be convicted in the indirect criminal contempt case, were made before the indirect criminal contempt case was transferred to the judge and go beyond mere impressions and opinions. Instead, the comments created a well-grounded fear of having pre-judged the merits of the indirect criminal contempt case. See Wargo v. Wargo, 669 So.2d 1123, 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“[A] party seeking to disqualify a judge need only show ‘a well grounded fear that he will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge. It is not a question of how the judge feels; it is a question of what feeling resides in the affiant’s mind and the basis for such feeling.’ ”) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition and remand for the clerk to reassign the indirect criminal contempt case to another circuit judge. We withhold formal issuance of the writ on the assumption that the current circuit judge will comply with this opinion. This opinion has no bearing upon the circuit judge’s *1265ability to continue hearing the marital dissolution case.
Petition granted.
GROSS, C.J., POLEN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wargo v. Bettina Li Belles Wargo and Julie Koenig, 669 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Kates v. Seidenman, 881 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)