State v. Armengau
2017 Ohio 197
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Javier H. Armengau, a licensed Ohio attorney, was convicted by a Franklin County jury on July 7, 2014 of multiple sexual offenses and sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment.
- On August 7, 2015 Armengau (pro se) moved for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial under Crim.R. 33, supported by his affidavit and an affidavit from Diane Caldwell claiming a victim had described the sexual contact as consensual.
- The new-evidence claim under Crim.R. 33(A)(6) was filed well outside the 120-day deadline; Armengau sought leave under Crim.R. 33(B) alleging he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence.
- The trial court denied leave without an evidentiary hearing; Armengau appealed that denial.
- The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and considered (1) whether Armengau proved unavoidable prevention by clear and convincing evidence, (2) whether he filed within a reasonable time after discovery, and (3) whether an evidentiary hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to file a delayed new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence (Crim.R.33(A)(6)) should be granted | Caldwell's affidavit showed materially exculpatory evidence (victim said contact was consensual); Armengau lacked knowledge earlier due to incarceration/transfers and limited legal access | State argued affidavits were vague, failed to show when evidence was discovered, and did not meet clear-and-convincing standard for unavoidable prevention | Denied — appellant did not prove by clear and convincing evidence he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering Caldwell's statements; court found affidavits too vague |
| Whether leave should be granted under Crim.R.33(A)(1),(2),(5) (other grounds: indictment specificity, prosecutorial/witness misconduct, legal error) | Appellant argued defects in indictment, prosecutorial/witness misconduct, and fabricated evidence required a new trial; lack of transcript and counsel issues prevented timely filing | State and trial court: these grounds were known or apparent at trial (or were supported by the trial record); transcript not required to assert these claims; appellant was transferred after the 14-day deadline | Denied — appellant was not unavoidably prevented from timely filing these claims; transcript delay and incarceration did not excuse missing the 14-day deadline |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before denying leave | Armengau requested a hearing to develop and prove his allegations | Trial court refused a hearing; argued appellant’s filings did not on their face establish unavoidable prevention | Denied — hearing discretionary; no prima facie showing of unavoidable prevention in the filings, so summary denial was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 (Ohio 2012) (deferential review of abuse-of-discretion determinations)
- State v. Hill, 64 Ohio St.3d 313 (Ohio 1992) (trial court discretion to hold evidentiary hearing on new-trial motions)
- State v. Williams, 43 Ohio St.2d 88 (Ohio 1975) (standard for disturbing trial court's discretionary decisions)