Background
A 22-month-old child (A.B.) was hospitalized with significant bruising on her ears, forehead, and both sides of her head while in the care of Michael Jason Diels, her stepfather. Diels initially claimed the child fell off a couch and struck a table; he later changed his story to say his 18-month-old son pushed her off the couch. Medical professionals, including a child trauma specialist, determined the injuries were inflicted trauma—not accidental—with bruising consistent with being grabbed and struck by multiple objects.
The State charged Diels with physical abuse of a child, felony bail jumping (violating bond conditions in an unrelated animal cruelty case), and misdemeanor bail jumping (violating bond conditions in a concealed weapons case). Throughout the proceedings, the child’s mother Halle expressed unwavering support for Diels, opposed protective measures, and declined to submit a victim impact statement. The circuit court appointed a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) for A.B., expressing concern that the child’s mother was not acting in the child’s best interests.
Diels entered a plea agreement whereby he pled no contest to felony bail jumping in exchange for dismissal of the abuse charge, which was nevertheless read in for sentencing purposes. At sentencing, Diels was sentenced to the maximum: three years initial confinement and three years extended supervision. He then filed a postconviction motion seeking resentencing before a different judge, arguing the court displayed objective bias and lacked authority to appoint a GAL.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and rejected both of Diels’s arguments. On the bias claim, the court held that Diels failed to demonstrate objective bias. Although the circuit court had presided over both Diels’s criminal case and a related confidential Child in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) proceeding involving the same child, presiding over connected cases does not automatically establish bias. Crucially, Diels did not argue or demonstrate that the court prejudged his sentence. Since Diels had already agreed that the child abuse allegations would be considered factually at sentencing as part of the bail jumping charge’s predicate offense, the court’s consideration of the abuse at sentencing did not raise concerns about prejudgment of guilt or sentence.
Regarding the GAL appointment, the court concluded that Diels forfeited his argument by failing to object when the appointment was made—despite being explicitly invited by the court to “weigh in” on the matter. Diels also made no objection when the GAL communicated her intention to participate in sentencing at the plea hearing or at sentencing itself. The court distinguished this case from analogous precedent involving surprise factual information raised for the first time at sentencing, finding that Diels had advance notice of the GAL’s role and therefore could have preserved his objection but chose not to.
Key Takeaways
- A judge presiding over connected cases involving the same parties does not automatically demonstrate bias or require recusal absent evidence that the judge prejudged the sentencing determination.
- A defendant’s failure to object to a GAL appointment when explicitly invited to do so may result in forfeiture of the argument on appeal, particularly where the GAL’s role was communicated in advance.
- When a defendant pleads no contest with an understanding that dismissed charges will be read in for sentencing, the court may appropriately consider those allegations as established fact at sentencing without creating concerns about prejudgment.
- Objective bias requires showing that a reasonable person could question the court’s impartiality based on the court’s statements or conduct—mere access to information in related proceedings is insufficient.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the high bar for establishing objective judicial bias in criminal cases. Defendants challenging sentencing decisions face a significant hurdle: they must affirmatively demonstrate that a reasonable observer would perceive prejudgment about the specific sentence, not merely show that a judge possessed information from related proceedings. The decision also establishes that procedural objections—particularly to the appointment of protective representatives for victims—should be raised promptly and contemporaneously or risk forfeiture, even when the defendant’s counsel takes a neutral stance initially.
The ruling has practical significance for cases involving vulnerable victims where courts appoint guardians ad litem to ensure the victim’s voice is heard when family members may not act in the victim’s best interests. By affirming the GAL appointment despite Diels’s failure to object, the court emphasized that victim protection mechanisms can proceed without waiving defendants’ appellate review, so long as defendants had fair notice and opportunity to contest the appointment at trial.