require disqualification. The standard of review of the denial of a motion to disqualify is de novo. Edwards v. State, 976 So.2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). A motion to disqualify is governed by the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330. One of the technical requirements of the rule is that a motion to disqualify shall “be sworn to by the party signing the motion under oath or by a separate affidavit.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(c)(3). Additionally, the “attorney for the party shall also separately certify that the motion and the client’s statements are made in good faith.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(c). If the technical requirements of the motion are not met, the motion is legally insufficient. See Barnhill v. State, 834 So.2d 836, 843 (Fla.2002) (<HOLDING>). Thus, failure to support a motion for
holding in a capital case that the defendant waived his argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue where the trial court took the motion under advisement but the defendant failed to seek a ruling on the motion and failed to renew the motion after the jurors had been qualified holding that the supreme courts proper scope of review of a trial courts decision in a trial de novo of an assessment matter is whether the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous holding that the filing of notice without motion is insufficient holding that a motion to continue a hearing on a postjudgment motion was ineffective to extend the period for the trial court to rule on the motion absent the express consent of the parties holding that regardless of whether the judges commentary otherwise warranted disqualification the technical requirements of the motion were not met and the trial courts decision to deny the motion as legally insufficient was proper