City of Cleveland v. Coleman

2017 Ohio 2839, 80 N.E.3d 498, 150 Ohio St. 3d 1252
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 16, 2017
DocketNo. 17-AP-008
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 Ohio 2839 (City of Cleveland v. Coleman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Cleveland v. Coleman, 2017 Ohio 2839, 80 N.E.3d 498, 150 Ohio St. 3d 1252 (Ohio 2017).

Opinion

O’Connor, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant, Kathy Coleman, has filed an affidavit with the clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 and 2701.031 seeking to disqualify Judge Charles L. Patton from presiding over any further proceedings in the above-captioned case.

(¶ 2} Ms. Coleman, however, filed her affidavit on February 15, 2017—only two days before the next scheduled hearing in the case. Under R.C. 2701.03(B), an affidavit of disqualification must be filed “not less than seven calendar days before the day on which the next hearing in the proceeding is scheduled.” This statutory deadline may be set aside “only when compliance with the provision is impossible,” such as when the alleged bias or prejudice occurs fewer than seven days before the hearing date or the case is scheduled or assigned to a judge within seven days of the next hearing. In re Disqualification of Leskovyansky, 88 Ohio St.3d 1210, 723 N.E.2d 1099 (1999).

{¶ 3} Ms. Coleman avers that she attempted to file her affidavit on February 10—which would have made it timely—but was told by a court employee to send in another affidavit because her initial affidavit “did not say sworn to.”1 She claims that she thereafter filed the present affidavit, which indicates that she swore to the allegations before a notary.

{¶ 4} Ms. Coleman has not established that it was impossible for her to comply with the statutory seven-day filing requirement. Rather, the record indicates that she attempted to file a deficient affidavit on February 10 and therefore [1253]*1253submitted a second (and corrected) affidavit on February 15. Ms. Coleman’s failure to initially comply with the requirements of R.C. 2701.03, however, does not excuse her from the statutory deadline. Accordingly, her affidavit of disqualification is dismissed as untimely.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jones v. State (In re Hendon)
122 N.E.3d 198 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2018)
City of Cleveland v. Coleman
2017 Ohio 7054 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 Ohio 2839, 80 N.E.3d 498, 150 Ohio St. 3d 1252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-cleveland-v-coleman-ohio-2017.