Cleveland v. Goodman, 2020 Ohio 2713

James R. Goodman was tried in Cleveland Municipal Court on consolidated misdemeanor charges: aggravated menacing (threat to burn victim's house with child inside) and criminal damaging (broken front window). Trial was a bench trial; victim M.E. testified to the threats and to seeing Goodman outside after the window was shattered; Goodman denied the allegations.
At the close of the December 2018 trial the court found Goodman guilty of aggravated menacing and criminal damaging and imposed consecutive jail terms (maximums) and a $300 restitution order for the window.
Following sentencing Goodman engaged in a courtroom outburst; the court immediately charged and convicted him of two counts of indirect contempt (R.C. 2705.02) and sentenced him to 30 days on each count.
Goodman appealed, arguing judicial bias, improper restitution (no hearing or proof of loss), conviction and sentence for contempt on insufficient/procedurally defective grounds, ineffective/insufficient counsel at contempt, failure to permit allocution, and improper consecutive sentencing.
The court of appeals affirmed the aggravated menacing and criminal damaging convictions, vacated the contempt convictions and sentences, vacated the restitution order and remanded for a restitution hearing, and deemed Goodman’s sentencing-related claims moot because he had already served his jail time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial bias	Court actions were proper responses to defendant's conduct; appellate court lacks authority to disqualify judge under R.C. 2701.03	Trial judge displayed hostility and animus that deprived Goodman of due process	No bias shown; admonishments were responses to defendant's conduct; assignment of error overruled
Restitution (amount & hearing)	Restitution imposed for damaged window	Restitution lacked supporting estimates/receipts and required an evidentiary hearing under R.C. 2929.28(A)(1)	City conceded error; restitution vacated and remanded for evidentiary hearing
Contempt convictions (procedure & sufficiency)	Court punished disruptive courtroom behavior as contempt	Contempt adjudication lacked required indirect-contempt procedural safeguards (written charge, hearing, opportunity to be heard) and acts occurred in court	Vacated contempt convictions and sentences; trial court abused discretion by treating the incidents as indirect contempt without required procedures
Sentencing, allocution, consecutive terms	Sentencing within court's misdemeanor discretion	Court considered uncharged conduct, denied allocution, and imposed consecutive terms improperly	Convictions for underlying misdemeanors affirmed; sentencing claims dismissed as moot because defendant served sentences

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (Due process requires an impartial judge)
State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt, 132 N.E.2d 191 (definition of judicial bias and statutory disqualification procedure)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (deep-seated favoritism or antagonism required to disqualify judge)
State v. Dean, 937 N.E.2d 97 (proceedings before a biased judge violate due process)
Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 271 N.E.2d 815 (definition of contempt)
Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 416 N.E.2d 610 (criminal contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
State ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 740 N.E.2d 265 (distinction between criminal and civil contempt and their remedies)
State ex rel. Seventh Urban, Inc. v. McFaul, 449 N.E.2d 445 (R.C. 2705.03 requires written charge and adversary hearing for indirect contempt)