Case Title: In re Disqualification of Saffold

Citation: 2017-Ohio-523

Docket Number: 17-AP-002

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2017-02-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Saffold, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2017-Ohio-523.] 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF SAFFOLD. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. THOMPSON. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Saffold, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2017-Ohio-523.] 
Judges—Affidavits 
of 
disqualification—R.C. 
2701.03—Affiant 
failed 
to 
demonstrate bias or prejudice—Disqualification denied. 
(No. 17-AP-002—Decided February 2, 2017.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Court of Common 
Pleas Case No. CR-11-553640-A. 
____________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Defendant, Lonnie Thompson, has filed an affidavit with the clerk of 
this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Shirley Strickland 
Saffold from presiding over any further proceedings in the above-captioned 
criminal case. 
{¶ 2} Mr. Thompson argues that Judge Saffold has demonstrated bias and 
prejudice against him and should be disqualified based on the following allegations.  
First, Mr. Thompson claims that Judge Saffold sentenced him to a prison term far 
greater than the sentence recommended by the prosecutor and the sentences 
imposed on his codefendants.  Second, Mr. Thompson alleges that the judge made 
numerous derogatory and inaccurate comments about him during sentencing.  And 
third, Mr. Thompson asserts that the judge has ignored valid posttrial motions and 
requests. 
{¶ 3} Judge Saffold has responded in writing to the allegations raised in the 
affidavit, offering a detailed account of the underlying proceedings.  The judge 
denies that the sentence imposed on Mr. Thompson reflects bias or prejudice, 
noting that the sentence was upheld on appeal.  As to her alleged disqualifying 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
comments, Judge Saffold claims to have merely offered fair comment about Mr. 
Thompson’s character during sentencing.  She also maintains that her failure to rule 
on certain motions does not demonstrate bias but rather a lack of jurisdiction over 
the majority of those motions. 
{¶ 4} For the reasons that follow, Mr. Thompson has failed to establish any 
basis to disqualify Judge Saffold. 
Judge’s alleged excessive sentence 
{¶ 5} Mr. Thompson first argues that Judge Saffold is biased and prejudiced 
because she imposed an excessive prison sentence.  Judge Saffold sentenced Mr. 
Thompson to a 31.5-year prison term.  Mr. Thompson states that his sentence 
greatly exceeds the 20-year prison term recommended by the prosecutor, as well as 
the three-year and one-year sentences given to his codefendants. 
{¶ 6} It is well settled that a party’s disagreement or dissatisfaction with a 
judge’s legal rulings, even erroneous ones, is not grounds for disqualification.  In 
re Disqualification of Floyd, 101 Ohio St.3d 1217, 2003-Ohio-7351, 803 N.E.2d 
818, ¶ 4.  The matter complained of here falls within the sound discretion of the 
trial court, and it is not the chief justice’s role in deciding an affidavit of 
disqualification to second-guess such matters.  See In re Disqualification of 
Synenberg, 127 Ohio St.3d 1220, 2009-Ohio-7206, 937 N.E.2d 1011, ¶ 20.  Mr. 
Thompson has other remedies, including appeal, available to challenge Judge 
Saffold’s sentence, but he may not litigate this issue in an affidavit of 
disqualification.  In re Disqualification of Luebbers, 145 Ohio St.3d 1226, 2015-
Ohio-5671, 48 N.E.3d 568, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 7} In fact, this was explained to Mr. Thompson in a judgment entry that 
denied a prior affidavit of disqualification that he had filed against Judge Saffold.  
See case No. 14-AP-117.  Moreover, Mr. Thompson did argue on direct appeal that 
his sentence was both excessive and disproportionate to those given to his 
codefendants.  Those arguments were rejected.  State v. Thompson, 8th Dist. 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
Cuyahoga No. 99628, 2014-Ohio-202, ¶ 21-26.  As noted, an affidavit of 
disqualification is not the appropriate forum for Mr. Thompson to seek review of 
such determinations. 
Judge’s alleged disqualifying comments 
{¶ 8} Second, Mr. Thompson alleges that Judge Saffold made numerous 
derogatory and inaccurate comments during sentencing.  In an affidavit-of-
disqualification case, the affiant bears the burden of submitting sufficient evidence 
to support the allegations of bias or prejudice.  R.C. 2701.03(B)(1) (requiring an 
affiant to include specific allegations of bias, prejudice, or disqualifying interest 
and the facts to support each allegation).  Generally, an affiant is required to submit 
evidence beyond the affidavit that would support the allegations contained therein.  
See In re Disqualification of Crow, 91 Ohio St.3d 1209, 741 N.E.2d 137 (2000). 
{¶ 9} Here, Mr. Thompson failed to substantiate his allegations with 
evidence outside the affidavit.  Mr. Thompson claims that the judge made the 
alleged disqualifying comments during his sentencing and resentencing hearings, 
but he did not provide a transcript of those hearings to support his allegations.  On 
this record, there is no way to determine whether Judge Saffold even made the 
complained-of comments, let alone whether those comments are disqualifying 
when viewed in context.  See In re Disqualification of Walker, 36 Ohio St.3d 606, 
522 N.E.2d 460 (1988) (vague, unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to 
establish bias or prejudice). 
Judge’s failure to rule on certain posttrial motions and requests 
{¶ 10} Finally, Mr. Thompson argues that the judge demonstrated bias and 
prejudice by refusing to rule on several valid posttrial motions, as well as certain 
requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law.  But a judge’s alleged failure 
to promptly rule on motions does not constitute bias or prejudice.  In re 
Disqualification of Eyster, 105 Ohio St.3d 1246, 2004-Ohio-7350, 826 N.E.2d 304, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
¶ 4 (a judge’s action—or inaction—on a motion is within the judge’s sound 
discretion and is not evidence of bias or prejudice). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 11} “The disqualification of a judge is an extraordinary remedy.”  In re 
Disqualification of O’Neill, 100 Ohio St.3d 1232, 2002-Ohio-7479, 798 N.E.2d 17, 
¶ 15, citing In re Disqualification of Hunter, 36 Ohio St.3d 607, 522 N.E.2d 461 
(1988).  Mr. Thompson has not demonstrated that there are extraordinary 
circumstances that warrant Judge Saffold’s disqualification. 
{¶ 12} Therefore, the affidavit of disqualification is denied.  The case may 
proceed before Judge Saffold. 
________________________