Yesbick v. State, 80-1537
| Decision Date | 20 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1537,80-1537 |
| Citation | 408 So.2d 1083 |
| Parties | Tommy YESBICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Dennis M. Zitzer of Barnett, Glass & Berkson, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Russell S. Bohn, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant Tommy Yesbick seeks review of a judgment adjudicating him guilty of possession of cocaine and possession of methequalone and sentencing him to two consecutive five-year terms in prison and a fine of $10,000.
The evidence reflects that the police executed a search warrant on a residence in Pompano Beach. After knocking on the door the officers entered the residence and found Gail Stadler, Thomas Capozzi, Gloria Jean Yesbick, and Tommy Yesbick inside. None of the four individuals had physical possession of any controlled substance, but various controlled substances were found in different locations in the house, some in plain view, some not. Gail Stadler testified that she and Tom Capozzi came to the duplex in which appellant lived to be shown cocaine which they were going to "front." They were shown cocaine by appellant, who told Stadler that it was cocaine, and she testified that neither she nor Capozzi had brought the cocaine with them. She related that appellant and Capozzi tested the cocaine with a "hot box" in the kitchen, and described appellant weighing the cocaine and putting approximately one ounce of it in a baggie. Appellant also gave her on consignment some quaalude tablets, which she and Capozzi were also going to front.
Detective Sergeant Andrew Grieco testified that two hot boxes were found in the duplex. Gail Stadler testified that there was another hot box in the house belonging to appellant which was not used apparently because it did not work.
Appellant poses six points for our consideration. We have fully considered all of them but will discuss only three.
On the date set for trial appellant moved for a continuance on the ground that his lawyer was involved in another case in New York. Appellant had already had at least three other continuances, and witnesses had been brought from out of state for the trial. Predictably, the trial judge was irritated by the conduct of appellant's counsel. After argument on the motion for continuance, which was granted, the State apprised the court that appellant had sent a message through a third party to Gail Stadler, a State witness, that she better not be available for trial. The trial court treated this information as a motion to revise appellant's bond and held a hearing after which appellant's bond was increased from $15,000 to $100,000. Thereafter, appellant filed a motion for disqualification of Judge Tyson with supporting affidavits. The grounds for disqualification were that the affiants had a well grounded fear that Judge Tyson was prejudiced against appellant. The ground for the alleged fear of prejudice was that the judge was prejudiced against appellant's counsel for his failure to appear on the trial date and the judge's action in increasing appellant's bond based on evidence of appellant's threats against a State witness. The trial judge found the motion was legally insufficient and we agree. The record does not justify the alleged fear of prejudice expressed in the affidavits. Nor do we believe the trial judge overstepped his bounds in commenting on the motion and affidavits. It is axiomatic that a trial judge may not pass upon the truth of the facts alleged nor adjudicate the question of disqualification. Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440 (Fla.1978); Management Corp. of America, Inc. v. Grossman, 396 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). That rule was not violated here; the trial judge passed on the sufficiency of the motion for disqualification-he did not pass on its merits.
Appellant next questions the State's adduction of evidence that appellant had sold a controlled substance to State witness Stadler on a date other than the date...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Livingston v. State
...1351 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 424 So.2d 761 (Fla.1982); Van Fripp v. State, 412 So.2d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Yesbick v. State, 408 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 417 So.2d 331 I therefore conclude that by failing to seek appellate court prohibition of the judge's presi......
-
Dufour v. State
...The testimony was relevant and admissible as defining the relationship between the state's witness and appellant. Yesbick v. State, 408 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 417 So.2d 331 (Fla.1982). Appellant's several other motions for mistrial similarly lack Appellant next contends t......
-
Williams v. State, 85-660
...case. See Malloy v. State, 382 So.2d 1190, 1192 (Fla.1979); Mainor v. State, 415 So.2d 827, 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Yesbick v. State, 408 So.2d 1083, 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 417 So.2d 331 (Fla.1982). Third, the defendant complains about certain alleged hearsay evidence. The ad......
-
Dion v. State, 81-1090
...for bank robbery. Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1981); Adkins v. State, 330 So.2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Yesbick v. State, 408 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA, 1982). The trial court, however, erroneously sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment on each of two counts as to which she wa......