State v. Armengau

[Cite as State v. Armengau, 2020-Ohio-3552.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 18AP-300 v. : (C.P.C. No. 13CR-2217) Javier Armengau, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Defendant-Appellant. : D E C I S I O N Rendered on June 30, 2020 On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Matthew J. Donahue, for appellee. Argued: Stephanie R. Anderson. On brief: Blake Law Firm Co., LLC, and Dustin M. Blake, for appellant. Argued: Dustin M. Blake. APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas BRUNNER, J. {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Javier Armengau, appeals an amended judgment entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas entered into the record on March 28, 2018 following a resentencing held on March 27, 2018. This judgment entry issued pursuant to a remand from this Court for resentencing on Counts 10, 14, 15, and 17 and for imposing an appropriate tier sex-offender classification. Because Armengau already served the 30- month sentence imposed for the sexual battery incident underlying Count 15, the trial court erred in resentencing when it denied credit for time already served in connection with that conduct and, by its statements, appeared to rely on the sentencing package doctrine in preserving the prior term of imprisonment and without reference to the sentencing requirements of Title 29 of the Ohio Revised Code, when it required Armengau to serve a 48-month consecutive sentence for Count 15. We therefore sustain, in part, Armengau's first assignment of error and remand to the trial court for resentencing on Count 15. No. 18AP-300 2 Because Counts 15 and 18 were based on separate incidents, the trial court did not err by failing to merge them. Thus, we overrule Armengau's second assignment of error. Armengau's remaining arguments under his third assignment of error are foreclosed as res judicata and law of the case. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY {¶ 2} We have previously recounted the facts and procedural history of this case in detail. State v. Armengau, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-679, 2017-Ohio-4452, ¶ 2-52. Suffice it to say, Armengau was indicted for 18 counts as a result of allegations from women whom he encountered in the course of his practice as a criminal defense attorney. Id. at ¶ 3. He was acquitted of 9 counts but was ultimately convicted, following a lengthy jury trial, of one count of public indecency (Count 2), 2 counts of gross sexual imposition (Counts 3 and 8), one count of rape (Count 10), one count of kidnapping (Count 14), and 4 counts of sexual battery (Counts 15 through 18). (July 7, 2014 Verdict Forms.) Counts 2 and 3 (public indecency and gross sexual imposition) concerned one victim, C.C.; Count 8 (the other gross sexual imposition charge) concerned another victim, K.R.; and the remaining Counts 10, 14, and 15 through 18 concerned a third victim, L.M. (May 20, 2013 Indictment.) {¶ 3} In sentencing Armengau, the trial court merged Counts 10 and 15, reasoning that the sexual battery underlying ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals