The Supreme Court of Ohio today suspended a former Montgomery County judge from the practice of law for one year, with six months stayed, for illegally arranging the early prison release of an acquaintance’s son.

The Supreme Court suspended Richard Skelton, who served as a common pleas court judge from 2015 until his resignation in December 2024. Skelton, of Centerville, resigned before his disciplinary hearing, with three years left on his term in office.

In a per curiam opinion, the Court found Skelton violated several rules of the Code of Judicial  Conduct and the rules governing the professional conduct of Ohio attorneys. Over the course of two years, Skelton engaged in multiple improper out-of-court communications with Aaron Cox and his mother, Shelly Overton, to facilitate Cox’s early release. Overton worked at a medical practice where Skelton was a patient.

Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the per curiam opinion. Fourth District Court of Appeals Judge Michael D. Hess, sitting for Justice Jennifer Brunner, also joined the opinion.

In a separate opinion, Justice Patrick F. Fischer wrote that Skelton’s manipulation of the Montgomery County court’s system of randomly assigning cases undermined the integrity of the judicial system, and his illegal release of Cox jeopardized public safety by letting a violent felon out of prison before he was eligible for release. Justice Fischer stated that Skelton’s violations warranted an 18-month suspension with six months stayed. Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy joined Justice Fischer’s opinion.

Mother Seeks Son’s Early Release
In August 2020, Cox pleaded guilty to several crimes, including aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and escape. The robbery charge stemmed from Cox robbing a person at gunpoint in 2019. While in jail in 2020, Cox complained to a sheriff’s deputy that he was not properly handcuffed while being transported from a hospital back to jail. When the deputy stopped to properly secure Cox, he pushed the deputy to the ground, jumped into the driver’s seat, and ran over the deputy’s arm while trying to flee the scene. Those acts resulted in the felonious assault and escape charges .

Cox’s case was before Judge Michael W. Krumholz, who sentenced Cox to an indefinite sentence of five to six years in prison.

As early as the day after her son’s sentencing, Overton began communicating with Skelton by email, phone, and text message to discuss the potential early release of her son.

Judge Seeks to Take Over Case
Judge Krumholz announced his intention to retire in February 2022. Overton and Skelton spoke about the retirement at one of Skelton’s medical appointments, and Skelton said he would talk to the retiring judge about taking over Cox’s case. Skelton spoke to Judge Krumholz and his bailiff about transferring Cox’s case to Skelton’s docket, but the transfer was not made at that time.

A month before Judge Krumholz’s retirement, Cox requested judicial release from him, but the judge did not act on the motion before retiring. All of the judge’s cases were initially assigned to a visiting judge. The visiting judge denied Cox’s release request.

Overton contacted Skelton, and after an exchange of messages, Skelton let her know that Cox could file again for early release. The two continued to exchange messages, and Skelton received information about Cox’s case that he requested from Overton.

Judge Kimberly Melnick was appointed as Judge Krumholz’s successor, and by local court rules, she was to inherit the cases assigned to him, or those cases were to be transferred to other judges through random assignment. Before Judge Melnick’s appointment, an order was submitted to the administrative judge, Timothy O’Connell, directing Cox’s case to be transferred to Skelton’s docket. Although it was unclear who submitted the transfer order, the administrative judge signed it.

Once Skelton took over the case, he directed that Cox be transferred from a state prison to the Montgomery County jail. Skelton sent Overton a text message, explaining that Cox was to appear in his court and the two would talk. He told Overton not to tell Cox he was being released.

A manager in the court’s pretrial release program saw the order to move Cox and asked Skelton if he needed assistance from the department. Skelton said he did not because he intended to release Cox. The judge also encountered an assistant prosecutor assigned to Cox’s case and informed her that he was considering releasing Cox from prison early.

Skelton spoke to Cox in court without inviting Cox’s attorney or informing the prosecutor. When the prosecutor learned that Skelton intended to release Cox, she notified the court of the prosecution’s opposition to Cox’s release.

In a recorded phone call from the county jail, Cox told his mother about the personal meeting with Skelton, and Overton told her son she knew for two weeks he was going to be released, but Skelton told her to keep it a secret.

At the time Skelton was considering releasing Cox, state law required a hearing to be conducted before granting release. The law also prohibited a person such as Cox, with a first-degree felony conviction, from being eligible for release unless the trial court made certain findings on the record. Cox and the prosecutor appeared before Skelton in court, but Skelton did not conduct a hearing or make any findings on the record. He announced he was granting Cox’s release over the objection of the prosecution and during the proceedings stated, “Report indicating he’s eligible.”

The report prepared by the court’s probation officer found Cox was not eligible for release. The following month, the prosecutor’s office appealed the judicial release. After learning of the circumstances, Judge O’Connell randomly assigned Cox’s case to another judge while the appeal was pending. Judge O’Connell and another judge spoke to Skelton about his conduct and encouraged him to report his judicial rule violations to disciplinary authorities. He did not, and the judges filed a grievance against him with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Offender Sent Back to Prison, Former Judge Faced Discipline
While the appeal of Cox’s release was pending, Cox violated the terms of his probation. The judge then presiding over his case ordered him imprisoned for the remainder of his original sentence.

In 2025, the disciplinary counsel filed a complaint against Skelton with the Board of Professional Conduct. The parties stipulated, and the board found, that Skelton violated several judicial and professional conduct rules, including abusing the prestige of his office to advance his personal interest, engaging in impermissible ex parte communications with Cox and Overton, and independently investigating the facts of a matter in a case before the court.

The board found Skelton “engaged in brazen and persistent ex parte communications with Overton and Cox about Cox’s criminal case,” using the information to further his own private investigation. He also disregarded the procedures for cases to be randomly assigned. The Supreme Court noted in its decision that the purpose of random assignment in courts with multiple judges includes an effort to “maintain public confidence in the judicial system by ensuring that cases are assigned impartially and not deliberately to a certain judge.”

The board found further violations, including using his office to advance Overton’s interests and granting Cox judicial release without conducting the required hearing or making the required findings. The board recommended that Skelton receive a fully stayed, one-year suspension with the condition that he does not commit any further misconduct.

The opinion stated the nature and scope of Skelton’s misconduct requires a harsher sanction. It suspended him for one year, with six months stayed, with the condition that he does not commit further misconduct. He was also ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

2025-1324. Disciplinary Counsel v. Skelton, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-1991.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.