Case Information
*1
[Cite as
In re Disqualification of Nastoff
,
I N RE D ISQUALIFICATION OF N ASTOFF .
T HE TATE OF O HIO
v.
D AVIS .
[Cite as
In re Disqualification of Nastoff,
Judges—Affidavit of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—Disqualification of judge
not warranted—Same judge who presided at trial may decide petition for postсonviction relief absent proof of bias or prejudice.
(No. 12-AP-004 — Decided February 16, 2012.) N A FFIDAVIT OF D ISQUALIFICATION in Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-1983-12-0614.
__________________
O’C ONNOR , C.J. Kort Gattеrdam, counsel for petitioner, has filed an affidavit with
the clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Andrew Nastoff from acting on any further рroceedings in case No. CR-1983-12-0614, a postconviction-relief action now pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County. Attorney Gаtterdam contends that it would be unfair for Judge
Nastoff to rule on Davis’s petition for postconviction relief. Judge Nastoff presided over the three-judge panel that sentenced Davis to death. Gatterdam states that the postconviction petition currently before Judge Nastoff contains a claim that Davis’s defense counsel were ineffective in not seeking to recuse Judge Nastoff frоm presiding over Davis’s capital sentencing hearing. Gatterdam argues that given the nature of the ineffective-assistance-of-сounsel claim, Judge Nastoff should be disqualified from presiding over the underlying postconviction- relief proceedings. *2 UPREME C OURT OF HIO
{¶ 3} Judge Nastoff has rеsponded in writing to the concerns raised in the affidavit of disqualification. According to the judge, he is capable of deciding the underlying petition in a fair and impartial manner, and he asks that he be allowed to remain on the case.
{¶ 4} For the following reasons, no basis has been set forth for ordering the disqualification of Judge Nastoff.
Relevant Facts In 1984, petitioner Davis was convicted of aggravated murder and
sentenced to death.
State v. Davis
, 38 Ohiо St.3d 361, 528 N.E.2d 925 (1988)
(affirming conviction but reversing death sentence);
January Term, 2012
{¶ 7} On October 21, 2011, Davis filed a petition for postconviction relief with the trial court. Davis сlaimed in the petition that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for not seeking to recuse Judge Nastoff. In his Sixth Ground for Relief, Davis argued that his trial counsel should have requested that Judge Nastoff step aside from the penalty-phase hearing becаuse the judge had served as a prosecutor in the death penalty case of Davis’s nephew and had advocated for thе nephew’s death.
{¶ 8} Davis also filed a motion requesting that Judge Nastoff recuse himself from deciding the postconviction-relief pеtition. Judge Nastoff denied the motion to recuse on January 6, 2012. Following this denial, attorney Gatterdam filed the instant affidavit of disqualification on Davis’s behalf.
The Merits of the Affidavit of Disqualification It is well settled that a judge who presided at trial will not be
disqualified from hearing a petition for postconviction relief in the absence of
evidence of bias, prejudice, or a disqualifying interest.
In re Disqualification of
Kilbane
, 42 Ohio St.3d 602, 536 N.E.2d 1153 (1989);
In re Disqualification of
Aubry
,
instant affidavit. Attorney Gatterdam argues only that it would be “unfair” to
hаve Judge Nastoff now rule on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel—or
any other ground in the postconviction petition—given the “nature” of the
*4
UPREME C OURT OF HIO ineffective-counsel claim. But Gatterdam does not explain why the nature of the
claim makes it unfаir for Judge Nastoff to rule on the postconviction petition. In
an affidavit-of-disqualification proceeding, the burden falls on the аffiant to
submit sufficient argument and evidence demonstrating that disqualification is
warranted.
See
R.C. 2701.03(B)(1) (requiring affiant to include specific
allegatiоns of bias, prejudice, or disqualifying interest and the facts to support
those allegations). It is not this court’s duty to speculate as to whаt grounds the
affiant believes would compel disqualification of the judge.
In re Disqualification
of Mitrovich
,
Nаstoff is incapable of presiding over the underlying case in a fair and impartial manner. The very nature of a postconviction-relief proceeding requires trial judges to evaluate and pass upon their own actions and conduct. R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a). Judge Nastoff’s disqualifiсation from postconviction proceedings is not required merely because Gatterdam has raised questions about the judge’s imрartiality in the underlying criminal case. Indeed, even if circumstances in the postconviction case ultimately show that Judge Nastoff shоuld have removed himself from Davis’s sentencing hearing, it does not automatically follow that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to seek his recusal. Quite simply, Gatterdam has not shown that the resolution of the ineffective-assistance-оf-counsel claim will necessarily turn on Judge Nastoff’s judgment concerning his own impartiality. While there may be circumstances that would prevent Judge Nastoff from presiding over Davis’s ineffective-assistance claim, Gatterdam has not established such grounds in his affidavit of disqualificаtion. See In re Disqualification of Walker , 36 Ohio St.3d
January Term, 2012
606, 522 N.E.2d 460 (1988) (vague and unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to establish bias or prejudice).
Conclusion “A judge is presumed to follow the law and not tо be biased, and
the appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to overcome these
presumptions.”
In re Disqualification of George,
100 Ohio St.3d 1241, 2003-
Ohio-5489,
denied. The case may proceed before Judge Nastoff.
______________________