1. On June 29, 2020, Ernesto timely and sufficiently filed his Motion Recusing Judge Andrew L. Siegel from the case sub-judice. This Motion clearly depicts the undeniable conflict of interest and bias in the case. See: Motion to Recuse.
2. On August 4, 2020, Judge Siegel, as it was expected, summarily denied Ernesto’s Motion. See: Order of Denial.
3. Ernesto without knowing of the existence of the Court’s Order Summarily Denying the Motion for Recusal. On August 6, 2020, filed a subsequent Motion to Reassign the case to a different judge. See: Motion to Reassign Case. However, this Motion was totally ignored and never addressed by the Court.
4. On August 10, 2020, Ernesto filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus within the Fourth District Court of Appeal requesting to squash the trial Court’s order Denying his Motion for Recusal. See: Petition for Writ of Mandamus and attached Exhibits.
5. On August 21, 2020, the District Court of Appeal issued its Acknowledgement of New Case. See: Notice of Acknowledgement.
6. On September 18, 2020, the District Court issued a Show Cause Order to the State to respond to Ernesto’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus. See: Court’s Order.
7. On October 8, 2020, the State filed its Response to the Mandamus Petition. See: State Response and attached Exhibits.
8. On November 3, 2020, the District Court entered its Order Granting Ernesto’s Petition for Mandamus and Judge Siegel got removed from the case. See: Court’s Order Granting Ernesto’s Petition.
9. On November 17, 2020, Ernesto filed within the District Court a Motion for Clarification, inquiring about the legitimacy of the Court’s Orders of Denial on his Second Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief. See: Motion for Clarification.
10. Finally, on December 16, 2020, the District Court of Appeal granted Ernesto’s Motion for Clarification. See: Court’s Order on Motion for Clarification.
Therefore, after a long battle in the courts the District Court of Appeal agreed with Ernesto’s Motion and ultimately recused Judge Andrew L. Siegel from the case. Additionally, the District Court granted Ernesto’s Motion for Clarification and vacated Judge Andrew L. Siegel’s Order Denying his Second Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief and further ordered that the new judge ruled on the currently pending Second Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief.
The Clerk of Court in following the District Court’s Order to reassign a new judge appointed the Honorable Judge Michael A. Usan.
DNA MANIPULATED CONVICTION 