State v. Church

2025 Ohio 5808
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 29, 2025
Docket25CA000035
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 Ohio 5808 (State v. Church) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Church, 2025 Ohio 5808 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Church, 2025-Ohio-5808.]

COURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO Case No. 25CA000035

Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 23CR125 WILLIAM D. CHURCH Judgment: Dismissed Defendant – Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: December 29, 2025

BEFORE: Andrew J. King; Kevin W. Popham; David M. Gormley, Appellate Judges

APPEARANCES: WILLIAM D. CHURCH, PRO SE, for Defendant-Appellant.

King, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant William Church appeals the September 15, 2025

judgment of the Guernsey County Common Pleas Judge Daniel Padden which denied

Church's pro-se motion for Judge Padden to recuse himself from Church's case. We find

the Court of Common Pleas was without jurisdiction to act upon Church's motion, and

therefore this court is without jurisdiction to address Church's assignment of error.

{¶ 2} A trial court judge's denial of a motion to recuse is not an appealable order.

When an affiant alleges bias or prejudice as Church did here, the filing of an affidavit of

disqualification with the Ohio Supreme Court pursuant to R.C. 2701.03 is the exclusive

lawful means of seeking recusal of a judge. R.C. 2701.03(A) directs: (A) If a judge of the court of common pleas allegedly is interested in

a proceeding pending before the court, allegedly is related to or has

a bias or prejudice for or against a party to a proceeding pending

before the court or a party’s counsel, or allegedly otherwise is

disqualified to preside in a proceeding pending before the court, any

party to the proceeding or the party’s counsel may file an affidavit of

disqualification with the clerk of the supreme court in accordance with

division (B) of this section.

{¶ 3} On September 22, 2025, Church did file an affidavit of disqualification with

the Ohio Supreme Court. On Affidavit of Disqualification State of Ohio v. William D.

Church, 25-AP-144. On September 24, 2025, the Court found Church had failed to

establish that the underlying case was pending before Judge Padden and dismissed the

affidavit of disqualification. That being true, this court is also without jurisdiction to address

Church's appeal. Beer v. Griffith, 54 Ohio St.2d 440, 441-442 (1978). Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal. For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the appeal is dismissed.

Costs to Appellant.

By: King, P.J.

Popham, J. and

Gormley, J. concur.

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

Related

Beer v. Griffith
377 N.E.2d 775 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 Ohio 5808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-church-ohioctapp-2025.