DARIEN A. HAUTER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 be disqualified when a defendant's affidavit alleges specific facts showing the judge made comments indicating he had predetermined the defendant's sentence, creating a well-grounded fear of an unfair sentencing hearing.
[1] A motion for disqualification of a judge is legally sufficient when the defendant's affidavit alleges specific facts showing the judge made statements indicating he had p…
[2] Once a judge is disqualified, the judge is prohibited from any further participation in the case, including ruling on pending motions.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Florida's courts have frequently held that a judge who has made statements indicating that he or she has predetermined the appropriate sentence is disqualified from presiding over the entire proceeding.”
Court citing Dorch v. State in support of the disqualification standard
Hauter filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge, alleging in his affidavit that the judge had made comments prior to the sentencing hearing indica…
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 Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
DARIEN A. HAUTER,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-2921
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed December 27, 2019
3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge.
Jason T. Forman, of Law Offices of Jason
T. Forman, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for
Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
LAMBERT, J.
Darien A. Hauter appeals two orders entered on the same day in two cases below. The first order denied Hauter’s motion to disqualify the trial judge as “legally insufficient.” The second order, filed with the clerk of the circuit court some fifteen minutes later, denied Hauter’s motion to mitigate his sentences under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
2 3.800(c). We treat Hauter’s challenge to the denial of his motion for disqualification of the trial judge as a petition for writ of prohibition1 and, as briefly explained below, we grant the writ.
It is unnecessary to provide a detailed chronology that led up to the events resulting in the filing of the motion to disqualify the trial judge. Suffice it to say, Hauter stated in his affidavit in support of his motion certain specific facts showing that prior to his presentation of any evidence or argument at his sentencing hearing for a downward departure sentence, the judge had made comments that indicated that he had predetermined that Hauter would receive lengthy prison sentences.2 Such comments, which, for purposes of the motion must be taken as true, provided Hauter with a well-grounded fear that he would not receive a fair sentencing hearing before the judge. See Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1087 (Fla. 1983) (recognizing that for a motion for disqualification to be legally sufficient, “[t]he facts alleged in the motion need only show that ‘the party making it has a well grounded fear that he will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge’”); see also Dorch v. State, 952 So. 2d 1244, 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“Florida’s courts have frequently held that a judge who has made statements indicating that he or she has predetermined the appropriate sentence is disqualified from presiding over the entire proceeding.” (quoting Konior v. State, 884 So. 2d 334, 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004))). The State has commendably and understandably conceded that the trial judge
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. ORDERS
DENYING MOTIONS FOR MITIGATION OF SENTENCES VACATED.
ORFINGER and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
3 We take no position on the merits of the motion to mitigate sentences. See generally Daniels v. State, 143 So. 3d 476, 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (recognizing that a trial court’s ruling on a rule 3.800(c) motion is not subject to review on appeal).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1983)
- Felice Kline v. JRD Mgmt. Corp. & Ccmsi, 165 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Konior v. State, 884 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Richard Plaza v. Marie Plaza, 21 So. 3d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Allen v. State, 952 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Daniels v. State, 143 So. 3d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)