10/14/13 Rinfret recuses self from West Holmes vandalism case

  • By Nick Sabo
  • October 7, 2013
  • 399
                        
SUMMARY: Ohio Supreme Court will appoint new judge The Ohio Supreme Court will appoint a judge to sentence three young men who vandalized West Holmes High School. In a Oct. 3 filing with the Ohio Supreme Court, Holmes County Common Pleas Judge Robert D. Rinfret recused himself from sentencing in the cases of Denver Black, 18, Big Prairie, Drew Jolley, 18, Millersburg, and Corbin Wright, 18, Millersburg. The three men each pleaded guilty July 23 to one count of vandalism and were scheduled for sentencing at the end of September. Rinfret’s voluntarily removing himself from the case comes two weeks after Rinfret filed a response to a complaint brought by attorneys representing the codefendants. The attorneys, Andrew Hyde, Jeff Kellogg and Christina Smith, filed a request with the Supreme Court to have Rinfret disqualified from hearing the case. The attorney’s request stated that Rinfret may be biased in the case and therefor should be removed from the sentencing the codefendants. Rinfret’s reply to the complaint, filed with the Supreme Court Sept. 24, was that he is not biased against the defendants. The attorneys’ complaint stayed the sentencing hearing until the Supreme Court issued a ruling. In an Oct. 3 judgement entry, Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor writes that Rinfret’s decision to recuse himself nullifies the attorney’s case to have him removed by a court order. O’Connor’s entry states that the affidavits entered by the attorneys representing the three men are “therefore dismissed as moot.” Speaking Oct. 7, Rinfret said he decided to recuse himself after much reflection on the case and his ability to continue volunteering with the schools. Rinfret said he wished to keep his comments brief because he is not permitted, as a judge, to comment on pending cases. The attorneys represent the three codefendants filed affidavits Sept. 13 with the Supreme Court alleging Rinfret showed bias by behaving emotionally during the July 23 plea hearing and in a conference after the plea hearing with Drew Jolley’s parents. The attorneys further cited Rinfret’s connections to West Holmes as a coach and volunteer, as well as the fact that his wife is a teacher at the middle school, as factors that could contribute to bias in sentencing. Rinfret filed a response with the Supreme Court and stated that he was not biased in any way against the defendants. Rinfret said his ties to the school were never cited in proceedings in which a West Holmes employee was brought before his court on theft charges. Rinfret further writes that the attorneys, who have all practiced in the county for varying lengths of time, were well aware of his connections to West Holmes prior to the case being heard. At the July 23 plea hearings, Rinfret told the codefendants that his children graduated from West Holmes and that his wife is a teacher there. Drew Jolley, in an affidavit filed with the Supreme Court, said Rinfret made the statements in a “stern” voice. Jolley further said his parents were concerned about what kind of sentence he might get after they spoke with Rinfret in the judge’s chambers following the plea hearing. Kellogg, speaking with the Bargain Hunter, said he and Rinfret had previously had a conversation related to the possibility of recusal prior to the affidavits being filed with the Supreme Court. An affidavit filed by Kellogg citing further allegations of bias was received by the Supreme Court the day after the case was dismissed. The charges against Black, Jolley and Wright stem from May 16, when the three codefendants and a 17-year-old juvenile spray painted ‘2013’ and other messages and symbols on the the high school’s exterior walls, benches, and the school bell. The field house, restrooms and press box were also vandalized. A male juvenile has also been charged in Holmes County Juvenile Court with vandalism stemming from the same incident. The vandalism charges carry up to 12 months in prison and a $2,500 fine. Sentencing has been continued until a judge can be appointed to case.


Loading next article...

End of content

No more pages to load