MICHAEL STEVEN RATLEY
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 who has recused himself from a case may not enter subsequent orders in that case, and any such orders are void and without effect.
[1] A trial judge who has recused himself from a case is divested of jurisdiction and any orders he subsequently enters in that case are void ab initio and must be vacated.
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 intelligence“Once a trial judge recuses himself from a given case, any subsequent orders he enters in that case are void and have no effect.”
Court's citation to Davis v. State in support of the principle that recused judges cannot enter valid orders.
Michael Ratley appealed a trial court's denial of his Motion for DNA Testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. The trial jud…
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 Motion For Dna Testing cases and more on FLexlaw
July 16, 2019 PER CURIAM.
Michael Ratley appeals the trial court’s order denying his Motion for DNA Testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. Appellant argues that the trial judge had previously disqualified himself from the underlying case and thus erred in ruling on Appellant’s motion. We agree. Therefore, we vacate the order under review and remand this case to the trial court so a successor judge can rule on the motion. See Davis v. State, 849 So. 2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“Once a trial judge recuses himself from a given case, any subsequent orders he enters in that case are void and have no effect.”); Adderley v. State, 224 So. 3d 776 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
VACATED and REMANDED.
2
RAY, C.J., and B.L. THOMAS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 849 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Adderley v. State, 224 So. 3d 776 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)