governed by our previous decision in Martin. In Martin, the appellant sought the disqualification of this trial court judge based on the same remarks from the same news article that form the basis of the motion here. There, this court held that the quoted remarks would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial hearing. Id. at 364. Therefore, Tyler’s motion was based on legally sufficient grounds. We reject the state’s argument that harmless error principles apply after taking into consideration the actual sentence imposed by the trial court. At the time the motion was made, the sentence was not yet imposed and, thus, Tyler could reasonably be in fear of not receiving a fair sentencing hearing. See Roy v. Roy, 687 So.2d 956, 956 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(<HOLDING>). Further, the fact that the written motion was
holding that although the record of a zoning hearing was closed to further substantive evidence a later board meeting at which counsel offered oral argument constituted the final hearing for purposes of section 9089 holding that where perception of bias arose during the hearing then it was proper for counsel to move for disqualification at the hearing and then to later reduce motion to writing to be in compliance with rule holding trial court did not err in failing to conduct a hearing on motion for reinstatement when appellants failed to call to the trial courts attention the need for a hearing holding that a student has a right to counsel in a university disciplinary hearing where there is a pending criminal charge for the same incident but noting that the attorneys role at the disciplinary hearing is limited to safeguarding the students rights at the criminal proceeding and not to affecting the outcome of the disciplinary hearing holding proper for permanency plan to be determined at dispositional hearing