Edwards-Freeman v. State, 138 So. 3d 507

Seven defendants (and their defense counsel) whose felony cases were before Judge Belanger filed motions to disqualify the judge after defense counsel filed a complaint with the Judicial Qualifications Commission about the judge’s prior comments and conduct.
Between 2009 and June 2013 the judge granted motions to disqualify in seven cases and later sua sponte recused in four additional matters when counsel appeared.
After reassignment to a high-volume felony division in January 2014, the judge stopped automatically recusing and denied seven new disqualification motions by these petitioners, characterizing the judge’s prior remarks as mere frustration and stating adverse rulings are not grounds for recusal.
Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to quash the denials and requested blanket disqualification of the judge from all cases involving their counsel; the court issued an order to show cause.
The state communicated ex parte with the judge, who explained he had changed course to avoid forum shopping and administrative burdens; the appellate court found that ex parte contact inappropriate to defeat the motions.
The court concluded the judge’s comments to a pro se litigant about defense counsel were inappropriate, could reasonably create an appearance of bias, and that the motions as sworn were sufficient to require disqualification for these petitioners, but it denied a blanket disqualification remedy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judge’s comments require disqualification	Judge’s remarks about counsel’s character were gratuitous and show prejudice affecting clients	Remarks were mere frustration/admonishment; adverse rulings not grounds for recusal	Motions were facially sufficient; disqualification required for these petitioners
Effect of prior granted recusals on current motions	Prior grants show the same grounds previously warranted disqualification	Change in assignment and administrative concerns justify denying blanket recusals	Prior grants support current disqualification; judge’s change of position undermines confidence
Whether the state’s ex parte contact with the judge can refute motions	Ex parte contact is improper and cannot be used to defeat motions	State relied on judge’s explanation about forum shopping/admin impact	Ex parte communications are improper and provide no valid basis to deny relief
Whether blanket disqualification of judge is appropriate	Counsel sought blanket disqualification to avoid future recusal battles	Blanket disqualification is disfavored and administratively problematic	Blanket disqualification denied; relief granted only as to these petitioners

5-H Corp. v. Padovano, 708 So.2d 244 (Fla. 1997) (reporting an attorney to the Bar or vice versa alone is insufficient for disqualification)
Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 1983) (judge’s animosity toward counsel can require disqualification when it adversely affects the client)
Ginsberg v. Holt, 86 So.2d 650 (Fla. 1956) (disqualification required when judge’s prejudice toward attorney adversely affects client)
State v. Cam Voong Leng, 987 So.2d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (prior grants of disqualification on same grounds support subsequent disqualification)
Jarp v. Jarp, 919 So.2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (disqualification depends on nature of dispute and time elapsed)
R.M.C. v. D.C., 77 So.3d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (blanket disqualification is a disfavored remedy)
Valltos v. State, 707 So.2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (state’s ex parte communications with judge should not be used to refute disqualification motions)
J & J Indus., Inc. v. Carpet Showcase of Tampa Bay, Inc., 723 So.2d 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (trial judges should avoid defending their actions in prohibition proceedings because such responses may create grounds for disqualification)
Ellis v. Henning, 678 So.2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (safer for a judge to remain silent and allow the opposing party to respond in prohibition actions)