State v. Smith (In re Blaine), 124 N.E.3d 842

Adam Arnold, defense counsel, filed an affidavit under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Erik Blaine from sentencing the defendant.
Arnold alleged the judge scheduled sentencing on a date when Arnold would be returning from out-of-state travel, preventing adequate preparation.
Arnold asserted the refusal to continue showed Judge Blaine intended to impose an excessively harsh sentence for political gain before leaving office.
Judge Blaine responded, denied bias, and explained his reasons for denying the continuance.
The court noted another attorney also represents the defendant and that this was a bench trial, meaning Judge Blaine was best positioned to sentence.
The court concluded the affidavit failed to show bias and denied disqualification; sentencing may proceed before Judge Blaine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Judge Blaine should be disqualified for alleged bias	Arnold: scheduling and refusal to continue were politically motivated and show bias to increase public profile	Judge Blaine: denies bias; exercised discretion in denying continuance; other counsel available; sentencing appropriate given bench trial and delays	Denied — affidavit did not show bias or prejudice sufficient for disqualification
Whether denial of a continuance alone demonstrates bias	Arnold: denial deprived adequate preparation, implying bias	Judge Blaine: denial was discretionary and not evidence of bias	Denied — continuance decisions are discretionary and not dispositive of bias
Whether procedural complaints belong in disqualification affidavit	Arnold: challenges judge’s scheduling as improper and prejudicial	Judge Blaine: scheduling and procedural choices are not proof of judicial bias	Denied — disqualification addresses bias, not procedural/substantive errors; such claims belong on appeal
Whether presumption of judicial impartiality was overcome	Arnold: argued judge’s timing and motive overcame presumption	Judge Blaine: presumption of impartiality stands absent compelling evidence	Denied — presumption not overcome; extraordinary remedy not warranted

In re Disqualification of Pontious, 94 Ohio St.3d 1235, 763 N.E.2d 603 (court discretion to grant continuances; denial alone not proof of bias) (2001)
In re Disqualification of Solovan, 100 Ohio St.3d 1214, 798 N.E.2d 3 (disqualification affidavits concern only bias, not procedural/substantive errors) (2003)
In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241, 798 N.E.2d 23 (presumption of judicial impartiality; disqualification is an extraordinary remedy) (2003)