Vaughn v. State
| Decision Date | 23 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68--1112,68--1112 |
| Citation | 226 So.2d 443 |
| Parties | John B. VAUGHN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Gregory B. Hoppenstand, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant, John B. Vaughn, appeals from a conviction for violation of probation and his sentences to three consecutive life terms of imprisonment for three separate robberies.
It appears that Vaughn originally pled guilty to the charge of committing three separate robberies. He was sentenced to four years in the state penitentiary for each robbery conviction. The three sentences were to run consecutively making a total of twelve (12) years. He subsequently moved to vacate these judgments and sentences pursuant to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Ultimately, the trial court vacated these judgments and sentences and granted him a new trial.
At the new trial he again pled guilty to the three robbery charges and Judge Stedman stayed and withheld the imposition of sentence and placed Vaughn on probation for a term of four years.
Later Vaughn was charged with violation of the probation order and the cause came on for hearing before Judge Stedman. Vaughn moved that Judge Stedman disqualify himself because of his prejudice against the defendant. The motion for disqualification was granted and the matter was transferred to Judge Jack Turner.
Judge Turner denied the written motion of Vaughn for a jury trial and conducted a hearing in the revocation of probation proceeding. He decided that Vaughn had violated certain terms and conditions of the probation order. Judge Turner transferred the matter back to Judge Stedman for his decision as to a formal order of revocation of probation and for sentencing.
Vaughn moved to exclude Judge Stedman from imposing sentence. This motion was denied. Judge Stedman then sentenced Vaughn to serve three consecutive life sentences in the state penitentiary. Timely post trial motions were filed and denied and this appeal follows.
Fla.R.Cr.P. 1.230(d), 33 F.S.A., formerly Fla.Stat. § 911.01, F.S.A., provides in pertinent part:
(Emphasis supplied.)
After disqualifying himself, the judge should proceed no further in the case. See 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 431; 9 Fla.Jur. Crim. Law § 127; Hooks v. State, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 459; State ex rel. Arnold v. Revels, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 218; and Williams v. State, Fla.1962, 143 So.2d 484.
It is apparent that after disqualification, Judge Stedman had no legal right or authority to proceed in this case and to enter the order of revocation of probation and sentences. The revocation order and sentences of Vaughn to three...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. Sentinel Star Co., 72-449
...104 Fla. 577, 140 So. 459; Crosby v. State, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 181; State v. Dewell, 1938, 131 Fla. 566, 179 So. 695; Vaughn v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 443. Cf. Hahn v. Frederick, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 823. Having determined that an order of disqualification should have been entered it ......
-
State v. Schack, 93-0703
...(Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 953 (Fla.1977); Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So.2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA1988); Vaughn v. State, 226 So.2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA1969). We grant the petition for writ of prohibition, withholding the writ in reliance upon Judge Schack's statement that he would......
-
Caidin v. Lakow, 91-2974
...Stadium, Inc. v. Sentinel Star Company, 273 So.2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), cert. denied, 277 So.2d 534 (Fla.1973); Vaughn v. State, 226 So.2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). ...
-
Gilmer v. Shell Oil Co., 75--448
...orders or final judgment. It is well settled that a judge who is disqualified can proceed no further in the case. Vaughn v. State, Fla.App.3d 1969, 226 So.2d 443; Kells v. Davidson, 1951, 102 Fla. 684, 136 So. 450. The appellee suggests that there is a distinction between a disqualified jud......