State v. Urbina, 2021 Ohio 4254

Urbina was serving a 19-year, 11-month aggregate sentence; after ~12.5 years he was granted judicial release in Feb. 2019 and the balance was suspended with 5 years of community control supervision.
Upon release he moved to Texas and supervision was transferred interstate; in late June 2020 he was arrested in Defiance County and refused a probation-requested drug screen.
The State moved to revoke community control (July 2, 2020) alleging unauthorized travel out of Texas and refusal to submit to drug testing; on July 17, 2020 Urbina tested positive for alcohol and admitted methamphetamine use.
Urbina failed to appear at a July 21, 2020 probable-cause hearing and was indicted for failure to appear; revocation proceedings were continued multiple times (six total reschedulings) between Oct. 2020 and Mar. 2021.
At the March 31, 2021 adjudicatory hearing the court denied Urbina’s last-minute continuance request after providing a brief recess to review documents; the judge questioned a probation officer about interstate travel permits; the court found multiple violations and reimposed the remaining sentence.
Urbina appealed raising: (1–2) denial of continuance / insufficient time to review State materials and to obtain documents, (3) judicial bias from the court’s questioning, and (4) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object to the court’s questioning.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Urbina)	Held
Whether denial of continuance deprived Urbina of due process (assignments 1–2)	Continued delays were unnecessary; documents given morning-of were not voluminous; Urbina had ample time and prior continuances	Denial prevented "meaningful time" to review State disclosures and to obtain documents necessary to rebut violations	Denial was not an abuse of discretion or due process violation given prior continuances, brief recess to review, and lack of showing of prejudice or reasonable need for more time
Whether judge’s questioning showed bias and counsel ineffective for not objecting (assignments 3–4)	Court’s interrogation was impartial and aimed to clarify travel-permit procedure; permissible judicial questioning; counsel not ineffective for not objecting	Judicial questions showed prejudice; counsel should have objected to preserve bias claim	No bias shown; judge may properly question witnesses in non-jury revocation hearing; counsel not ineffective because failing to object to permissible questioning is not deficient

State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (discretionary continuance standard and Unger factors)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (no mechanical test for continuance denials; review based on circumstances)
State v. Sowders, 4 Ohio St.3d 143 (Ohio 1983) (right to reasonable opportunity to prepare defense)
State v. Broom, 40 Ohio St.3d 277 (Ohio 1988) (not every continuance denial is a due process violation)
State v. Baston, 85 Ohio St.3d 418 (Ohio 1999) (trial court may interrogate witnesses impartially)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Kole, 92 Ohio St.3d 303 (Ohio 2001) (applying Strickland standard)
State v. Davis, 79 Ohio App.3d 450 (Ohio App. 1992) (trial judge has active duty to question witnesses to develop truth)
Jenkins v. Clark, 7 Ohio App.3d 93 (Ohio App. 1983) (presumption of trial-court impartiality in bench questioning)
State v. Blankenship, 102 Ohio App.3d 534 (Ohio App. 1995) (damaging elicited testimony from judge’s questioning does not alone show partiality)