2020 Ohio 1421
Ohio2020Background
- Javier Horacio Armengau, an Ohio attorney, was interim-suspended after felony convictions for rape, kidnapping, gross sexual imposition, and sexual battery; interim suspensions remained in effect.
- The Columbus Bar Association filed a 14-count disciplinary complaint based largely on the conduct underlying those criminal convictions; the Board initially stayed proceedings pending direct appeals of the criminal convictions.
- The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing; this court declined review, and the trial court issued an amended resentencing judgment in March 2018.
- Armengau appealed the resentencing judgment; while that appeal remained pending, a Board panel proceeded to hear the disciplinary charge tied to the criminal conduct and recommended disbarment.
- Armengau objected, arguing the Board should have stayed the disciplinary hearing until all direct appeals concluded; the Supreme Court held the resentencing appeal is a direct appeal and remanded with instructions to stay the disciplinary proceedings until all direct appeals are resolved, rendering other objections unripe.
Issues
| Issue | Relator's Argument | Armengau's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an appeal of a resentencing judgment is a "direct appeal" under Gov.Bar R. V(18)(C), requiring a mandatory stay of disciplinary proceedings based on the conviction | The stay was properly lifted after the court of appeals' decision; the resentencing appeal is collateral and not covered by V(18)(C) | The resentencing appeal is a direct appeal of a new final judgment and thus V(18)(C) mandates a stay | The resentencing appeal is a direct appeal; the Board must stay disciplinary proceedings based on the convictions until all direct appeals conclude |
| Whether the Board improperly prevented Armengau from presenting evidence and whether disbarment is appropriate at this stage | The Board was not required to stay further because direct appeals had concluded; proceeding was proper and sanction may be warranted | The hearing should have been stayed; resolution of evidentiary and sanction issues is premature until appeals conclude | Court declined to reach these issues as unripe pending conclusion of all direct appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Armengau, 146 Ohio St.3d 1233 (2014) (court granted interim suspension on public-harm ground)
- In re Armengau, 140 Ohio St.3d 1247 (2014) (second interim suspension following felony convictions)
- State v. Armengau, 93 N.E.3d 284 (10th Dist. 2017) (appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing)
- Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 115 Ohio St.3d 375 (2007) (distinguishes direct attacks from collateral attacks; defines appeals as direct attacks)
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008) (judgment of conviction is final and appealable when it includes guilty finding, sentence, judge signature, and journal entry)
- State ex rel. White v. Woods, 156 Ohio St.3d 562 (2019) (resentencing entry that complies with Crim.R. 32(C) and Baker is a final, appealable order)