State v. Chebegwen (In re Adkins), 2018 Ohio 5438

Defendant Clouvis Chebegwen (Cameroon national, pending asylum) faced charges including theft and pandering involving a minor; defense counsel Michael Dailey filed an affidavit to disqualify Judge Dennis J. Adkins under R.C. 2701.03.
Dailey alleged Judge Adkins showed bias or the appearance of impropriety based on: an allegedly insensitive comment about keeping Chebegwen in the country; an initial rejection of a proposed plea; involving prosecutor supervisors in plea talks; refusal to continue the trial; and general disdain for the defendant’s immigration status.
The plea agreement would have amended/dismissed the sexually oriented offenses; Dailey argued convictions would trigger deportation and severe harm to Chebegwen.
Judge Adkins admitted making a comment but said it was taken out of context, asserted he would not consider immigration status in decisions, and explained he conditioned acceptance of the plea on prosecutor-supervisor approval per office policy.
Additional affidavits (from prosecutors and defense colleagues) were submitted. The clerk accepted the disqualification affidavit despite the seven-day filing rule because the alleged conduct occurred within seven days of trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of affidavit under R.C. 2701.03(B)	Dailey filed same day as trial; said conduct occurred within 5 days so timely filing was impossible earlier	Clerk properly accepted filing; exceptions apply when events occur within seven days	Filing accepted as timely under the impossibility exception
Whether judge's comment and alleged disdain created bias or appearance of impropriety	Comment "Why are we fighting so hard to keep this guy in our country" and other conduct show hostility to defendant's immigration status	Comment was in context of plea negotiation response; judge denies bias and says immigration status not considered	Comment viewed in context; isolated remark insufficient to show bias or objective appearance of partiality
Whether judge's handling of plea (alleged rejection, involving supervisors) shows bias	Judge initially rejected plea and involved prosecutors, evidencing partiality	Judge conditioned acceptance on prosecutor-supervisor approval per internal policy and did not reject the plea himself	Judge’s conditional approach and involvement of supervisors explained by policy and not evidence of bias
Whether denial of continuance evidences bias	Refusal to continue trial supports claim of unfairness	Trial continuance is discretionary and denial alone is not proof of bias; judge explained reasons	Denial of continuance is not by itself evidence of bias; no disqualification warranted

In re Disqualification of Leskovyansky, 88 Ohio St.3d 1210 (1999) (exception to 7‑day filing when alleged bias occurs within seven days)
In re Disqualification of Squire, 110 Ohio St.3d 1202 (2005) (clerk may accept late affidavit when timely filing impossible)
In re Disqualification of O'Neill, 100 Ohio St.3d 1232 (2002) (definition of judicial bias and prejudice)
State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 463 (1956) (bias requires hostile spirit or fixed anticipatory judgment)
In re Disqualification of Lewis, 117 Ohio St.3d 1227 (2004) (objective test for appearance of impropriety; reasonable informed observer standard)
In re Disqualification of Gall, 135 Ohio St.3d 1283 (2013) (reasonable observer presumed fully informed of relevant facts)
In re Disqualification of Martin, 149 Ohio St.3d 1233 (2016) (isolated frustrated comment does not necessarily show bias when judge's response shows impartiality)
In re Disqualification of Mitrovich, 74 Ohio St.3d 1219 (1996) (refusal to accept plea is discretionary and not grounds for disqualification)
In re Disqualification of Millard, 74 Ohio St.3d 1235 (1992) (denial of continuance is discretional and not alone evidence of bias)
In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241 (2003) (disqualification is extraordinary; judge presumed impartial)