David A. Mathews v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 446
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- David A. Mathews had prior representation by Patrick R. Miller (then a public defender) in a 2003 felony OUI case; Miller later became Judge Miller of Adams Superior Court.
- In 2012 Mathews was tried before Judge Miller on separate charges; Judge Miller transferred the habitual-offender phase to another judge out of caution but did not recuse entirely; Mathews’s convictions were affirmed on appeal.
- In 2014 Mathews was charged again (2014 Case) and brought before Judge Miller in November 2014; a public defender was later appointed.
- Mathews raised bias concerns at an April 1, 2015 pretrial conference and later filed a deficient, untimely, unverified "Verified Motion for Recusal" on June 9, 2015 alleging Judge Miller’s prior representation required recusal under Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11(A).
- Judge Miller denied the recusal motion; Mathews was tried and convicted in November 2015 and appealed, arguing recusal was required under the Code of Judicial Conduct and that the judge’s participation violated due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mathews) | Defendant's Argument (State / Judge Miller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mathews could obtain relief under the Code of Judicial Conduct absent a proper Crim. R. 12 motion | Code Rule 2.11 requires disqualification for prior lawyer involvement; the Code provides an independent basis for recusal and relief | The Code governs judge conduct and discipline but does not create a freestanding procedural vehicle to override Crim. R. 12 requirements | Court held the Code does not supply a freestanding enforcement right; Rule 12 governs litigant recusal claims |
| Whether Mathews complied with Rule 12 timing/verification requirements for a change of judge | The late filing should be excused because prior representation and prior recusal in 2011 made impartiality reasonably questionable | Mathews’s motion was unverified, misdated, and filed well beyond Rule 12’s 30-day window; he procedurally defaulted | Court held the motion was procedurally deficient and untimely; Rule 12 requirements not met |
| Whether Judge Miller’s prior representation in the 2003 Case required disqualification in the 2014 Case under the Code | Prior representation in a matter in controversy requires disqualification; the 2003 conviction and related parole/revocation issues made the matter relevant to the 2014 Case | The prior case was not a "matter in controversy" in the 2014 Case; parole revocation and criminal conviction standards differ and the matters were legally independent | Court held the prior representation did not require recusal in the 2014 Case |
| Whether Judge Miller’s prior recusal in the 2011 recidivist phase and his failure to disclose required sua sponte recusal or disclosure | Prior recusal and non-disclosure show an appearance of bias and disclosure is required by the Code comment | Prior limited recusal does not create an ongoing disqualification for unrelated matters; the disclosure comment is nonbinding and, while preferred, does not create automatic recusal | Court held prior recusal alone did not mandate future recusal and nondisclosure did not require reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) (due process requires an impartial tribunal)
- Garland v. State, 788 N.E.2d 425 (Ind. 2003) (standard of review and presumption of judicial impartiality)
- Voss v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1211 (Ind. 2006) (judge’s obligation under the Code to consider sua sponte disqualification)
- Sisson v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (consideration of Code obligations separate from Rule 12 analysis)
- Dishman v. State, 525 N.E.2d 284 (Ind. 1988) (no disqualification where prior conviction underlying habitual-offender finding was not factually contested)
- Gunter v. State, 605 N.E.2d 1209 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (similar facts to Dishman; no cause for disqualification)
- Harris v. State, 836 N.E.2d 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (parole revocation standard: preponderance of the evidence and evidentiary looseness)
- Mathews v. State, 978 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (prior appeal involving related proceedings)
- Thakkar v. State, 644 N.E.2d 609 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (recusal analysis referencing Code as substantive guide)