Case Title: In re Disqualification of Blaine

Citation: 2018-Ohio-5459

Docket Number: 18-AP-142

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2018-12-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Blaine, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2018-Ohio-5459.] 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF BLAINE. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. SMITH. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Blaine, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2018-Ohio-5459.] 
Judges—Affidavits 
of 
disqualification—R.C. 
2701.03—Affiant 
failed 
to 
demonstrate bias or prejudice from judge—Disqualification denied. 
(No. 18-AP-142—Decided December 31, 2018.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Montgomery County Court of Common 
Pleas, Case No. 2018 CR 01861. 
____________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Adam Arnold, counsel for the defendant, has filed an affidavit with 
the clerk of this court pursuant to R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Erik 
Blaine from sentencing the defendant in the above-referenced case. 
{¶ 2} Mr. Arnold claims that Judge Blaine has used the case “for political 
gain and publicity.”  Primarily, Mr. Arnold alleges that Judge Blaine scheduled 
sentencing on the day that Mr. Arnold will be returning from previously scheduled, 
out-of-state holiday travel, which will not allow him to adequately prepare for the 
sentencing.  The judge’s refusal to continue the hearing, Mr. Arnold avers, shows 
that Judge Blaine “intends to render as harsh a sentence as possible in order to raise 
his political profile” before his final day in office, which is the day after the 
scheduled sentencing. 
{¶ 3} Judge Blaine has responded in writing to the affidavit and denies any 
bias against the defendant.  The judge also explained his reasons for denying Mr. 
Arnold’s request to continue the sentencing hearing. 
{¶ 4} For the reasons explained below, no basis has been established to 
order the disqualification of Judge Blaine. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 5} First, Mr. Arnold acknowledges that another attorney also represents 
the defendant and nothing in this record indicates that Mr. Arnold’s cocounsel is 
unavailable for the scheduled sentencing.  Second, it is well established that “[a] 
judge’s decision to grant or deny a party’s request for a continuance is within the 
sound discretion of the judge and is not, by itself, evidence of bias or prejudice.”  
In re Disqualification of Pontious, 94 Ohio St.3d 1235, 1236, 763 N.E.2d 603 
(2001).  Third, because this was a bench trial, Judge Blaine is in the best position 
to sentence the defendant.  If the defendant had not fled the state near the end of his 
trial, Judge Blaine would have undoubtedly already sentenced him.  Fourth, if Mr. 
Arnold believes that his client’s rights were compromised by Judge Blaine’s refusal 
to continue the sentencing hearing—for example, if Mr. Arnold believes that he 
was not given sufficient time to prepare—he may raise those issues on appeal.  An 
affidavit of disqualification, however, “addresses the narrow issue of the possible 
bias or prejudice of a judge.  It is not a vehicle to contest matters of substantive or 
procedural law * * *.”  In re Disqualification of Solovan, 100 Ohio St.3d 1214, 
2003-Ohio-5484, 798 N.E.2d 3, ¶ 4.  Mr. Arnold has not established that Judge 
Blaine’s actions in the underlying case were a product of bias against the defendant. 
{¶ 6} “The statutory right to seek disqualification of a judge is an 
extraordinary remedy.  A judge is presumed to follow the law and not to be biased, 
and the appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to overcome these 
presumptions.”  (Citation omitted.)  In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio 
St.3d 1241, 2003-Ohio-5489, 798 N.E.2d 23, ¶ 5.  Those presumptions have not 
been overcome in this case. 
{¶ 7} The affidavit of disqualification is denied.  Sentencing may proceed 
before Judge Blaine. 
________________________