WARE v. STATE (2024)

Petitioner Keion Ware, pro se, seeks a writ of prohibition based on the trial court's denial of his motion to recuse the trial judge. Because Petitioner is currently being represented by counsel—and counsel has not adopted the motion to recuse—we dismiss. See, e.g., Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275, 282 (Fla. 2009) (“We reaffirm our holding in Logan[¹ ] and Johnson[² ] to dismiss pro se extraordinary writ petitions filed in this Court while a defendant is simultaneously being represented by counsel in ongoing criminal proceedings in either the trial or appellate court.”).

FOOTNOTES

1.   Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003).

2.   Johnson v. State, 974 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2008).

PER CURIAM.