SOTO v. STATE (2018)

Arnold Soto filed a petition for writ of prohibition seeking an order prohibiting the trial judge from presiding over his cases and requiring the trial judge to reassign the cases immediately to a different division.

Having reviewed the record before us as well as the facts alleged in the underlying motion to disqualify and, taking those facts to be true, as we must, we conclude that the grounds alleged in Petitioner's motion for disqualification are legally sufficient. See Wall v. State, 238 So. 3d 127, 143 (Fla. 2018) (The term ‘legal sufficiency’ encompasses more than mere technical compliance with the rule and the statute. The standard for viewing the legal sufficiency of a motion to disqualify is whether the facts alleged, which must be assumed to be true, would cause the movant to have a well-founded fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial at the hands of that judge. Further, this fear of judicial bias must be objectively reasonable. A movant cannot simply pluck one word from a full sentence made by the trial judge to make a motion to disqualify legally sufficient. Thus, the context of the hearing and history of the case as reflected in the record are relevant to understanding whether a movant has a well-founded fear of judicial bias. (internal quotations and citations omitted.) )

We withhold formal issuance of the writ, confident that the trial judge will promptly issue an order of disqualification.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SUAREZ and LINDSEY, JJ., concur.