MARC MEDIATE vs STATE OF FLORIDA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED MARC MEDIATE, Petitioner v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Case No. 5D21-2277 LT Case No. 1986-CF-244 Respondent. ________________________________/ Opinion filed November 19, 2021 Petition for Writ of Prohibition, Richard A. Howard, Respondent Judge. Michael A. Graves, Public Defender and Edward C. Spaight, Assistant Public Defender, Inverness, for Petitioner. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent. PER CURIAM. Petitioner, Marc Mediate, a juvenile offender, seeks a writ of prohibition following the postconviction court’s order denying his motion to disqualify the presiding judge from hearing his application for a sentence review filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.802. A motion to disqualify is legally sufficient if the facts alleged—when taken as true and considered objectively—would reasonably cause a litigant to have a well-founded fear that he or she would not receive a fair trial or hearing before the presiding judge. See Shuler v. Green Mountain Ventures, Inc., 791 So. 2d 1213, 1215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); see also § 38.10, Fla. Stat. (2021); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(e)(1). We find that Petitioner has met that burden. To rule on Petitioner’s application, the postconviction court must consider a non-exhaustive list of factors found in section 921.1402(6), Florida Statutes (2021). Those factors include whether the juvenile offender demonstrates maturity and rehabilitation, whether the juvenile offender remains at the same level of risk to society as he or she did at the time of the initial sentencing, and whether the juvenile offender has shown sincere and sustained remorse for the criminal offense. Before hearing Petitioner’s application, the judge presiding over Petitioner’s postconviction proceedings made several statements about the Petitioner, two of which warrant disqualification. First, the presiding judge stated that the Petitioner is “an older, dedicated unrepentant rapist [who is] driven to sexually offend [and who] has a low possibility of rehabilitation.” Second, the presiding judge 2 stated that Petitioner “is and will remain as long as he lives, irredeemably incorrigible.” We find these statements would reasonably cause a litigant to fear that the presiding judge has predetermined the appropriate sentence. Hauter v. State, 287 So. 3d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition and remand this case for assignment to a different judge. PETITION GRANTED. EDWARDS, HARRIS, and NARDELLA, JJ., concur. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
