State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch, 2015 Minn. LEXIS 373

Background

Alton Finch was convicted of second-degree assault, placed on probation with a stayed 36-month sentence, and sentenced to county workhouse; he later failed to return from furlough and turned himself in.
Before a probation-revocation hearing, Finch moved to disqualify the district court judge for cause (arguing an appearance of partiality) and alternatively asked the court to refer the disqualification motion to the district’s chief judge under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 14(3).
The district court denied Finch’s motions in their entirety (without written order), then immediately began the revocation hearing, and subsequently revoked probation and executed the stayed sentence.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding Finch should have sought a writ of prohibition, had waived referral by presenting the motion to the presiding judge, and failed to show judicial bias on the merits.
The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether an appeal (instead of prohibition) preserves a Rule 26.03(14)(3) disqualification claim, (2) whether Finch waived referral to the chief judge, and (3) whether the judge’s conduct required disqualification and reversal.

Issues

Issue	Finch's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether a petition for a writ of prohibition is required to preserve appellate review of a motion to disqualify a judge for cause under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 14(3)	Appeal is adequate; prohibition is not required for disqualification-for-cause claims	Denial of removal for cause should be challenged by prohibition (per some prior appellate decisions)	A writ of prohibition is not required; appeals may review disqualification-for-cause claims; prior contrary appellate precedent overruled
Whether Finch waived the right to have the chief judge hear the disqualification motion by first presenting it to the presiding judge	No waiver: Finch sought voluntary recusal and alternatively requested referral to the chief judge; the district court denied the alternative request, preserving the issue	Waiver because Finch presented the motion to the judge he sought to remove; he should have sought chief-judge review after denial	No waiver: alternative request preserved right to referral; immediate denial and commencement of hearing meant no practical opportunity to seek chief-judge review
Whether the district court erred by denying the alternative request to refer the motion to the chief judge	Denial violated the clear mandate of Rule 26.03(14)(3) to have the chief judge hear requests to disqualify for cause	The presiding judge may decide the motion in the first instance; no reversible error here	The district court erred by refusing to refer the motion to the chief judge, denying Finch the procedure required by Rule 26.03(14)(3)
Whether the judge’s remarks created an appearance of partiality requiring disqualification and vacatur of the revocation	Judge prejudged revocation (said he would execute sentence for any probation violation and said Finch may have "duped" the court), creating an objectively reasonable appearance of partiality	The record does not demonstrate actual bias; any comments did not require disqualification or automatic reversal	A reasonable examiner would question the judge’s impartiality; judge was disqualified and the revocation must be vacated and remanded for proceedings before a different judge

Key Cases Cited

In re Jacobs, 802 N.W.2d 748 (Minn. 2011) (standard for disqualification based on appearance of partiality)
State v. Dorsey, 701 N.W.2d 238 (Minn. 2005) (presence of a partial judge as structural error and impartiality principles)
State v. Schlienz, 774 N.W.2d 361 (Minn. 2009) (impartiality and preservation of disqualification claims)
State v. Dahlin, 753 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. 2008) (requiring writ of prohibition for peremptory removal denials)
State v. Cermak, 350 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. 1984) (denial of peremptory removal must be challenged by prohibition)
State v. Pratt, 813 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. 2012) (perspective of a reasonable examiner for appearance-of-partiality analysis)
Powell v. Anderson, 660 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. 2003) (framework for harmlessness in judicial-disqualification context)
Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1988) (harmless-error approach to judge-disqualification failures)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (distinguishing structural from harmless error)
Austin v. State, 295 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 1980) (standards for revocation of probation)