Columbus Bar Assn. v. Armengau (Slip Opinion)

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as

Columbus Bar Assn. v. Armengau, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-1421.]

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in

an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested

to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio,

65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or

other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be

made before the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-1421

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. ARMENGAU.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it

may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Armengau, Slip Opinion No.

2020-Ohio-1421.]

Attorneys—Misconduct—Attorney’s appeal from trial court’s resentencing

judgment is a direct appeal—Cause remanded for Board of Professional

Conduct to stay proceedings until all direct appeals of attorney’s

convictions have concluded.

(No. 2019-0500—Submitted January 7, 2020—Decided April 14, 2020.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme

Court, No. 2014-087.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Javier Horacio Armengau, of Columbus, Ohio,

Attorney Registration No. 0069776, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in

1998. On July 8, 2014, we granted the motion of relator, Columbus Bar

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Association, to suspend Armengau from the practice of law on an interim basis on

the ground that he posed a substantial threat of serious harm to the public.

Columbus Bar Assn. v. Armengau, 146 Ohio St.3d 1233, 2014-Ohio-3023, 54

N.E.3d 1252; Gov.Bar R. V(19). We imposed a second interim suspension on

September 15, 2014, based on Armengau’s felony convictions on single counts of

rape and kidnapping, two counts of gross sexual imposition, and four counts of

sexual battery.1 See In re Armengau, 140 Ohio St.3d 1247, 2014-Ohio-3940, 18

N.E.3d 1220; Gov.Bar R. V(18). Those suspensions remain in effect.

{¶ 2} On August 29, 2014, Armengau filed a notice of appeal in the Tenth

District Court of Appeals, challenging his convictions and sentence.

{¶ 3} On December 15, 2014, relator filed a 14-count complaint alleging

that Armengau committed multiple ethical violations in the context of his criminal

offenses, representation of multiple clients, and management of various aspects of

his legal practice. But the Board of Professional Conduct issued an order staying

the proceedings “during the pendency of the direct appellate proceedings”

regarding Armengau’s criminal convictions.

{¶ 4} On June 22, 2017, the Tenth District affirmed the trial court’s

judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case to the trial court to

resentence Armengau on four counts. State v. Armengau, 2017-Ohio-4452, 93

N.E.3d 284 (10th Dist.). We declined to accept a discretionary appeal from that

judgment on January 31, 2018. 151 Ohio St.3d 1511, 2018-Ohio-365, 90 N.E.3d

950.

{¶ 5} In March 2018, the trial court conducted a resentencing hearing and

issued an amended judgment entry, correcting errors in the merger of some allied

offenses of similar import and the sentences imposed for those offenses and

determining Armengau’s sex-offender classification under the law in effect at the

1. Armengau was also convicted of a misdemeanor count of public indecency.

2

January Term, 2020

time of Armengau’s offenses. Armengau appealed that judgment. State v.

Armengau, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-300.

{¶ 6} On January 9, 2019, while Armengau’s appeal of the resentencing

judgment remained pending, a panel of the board conducted a hearing on the first

count of relator’s complaint, which relates solely to the conduct underlying

Armengau’s criminal convictions.2

{¶ 7} This case is before the court on Armengau’s objections to the

board’s April 8, 2019 report and recommendation that he be disbarred for

committing illegal acts that adversely reflect on his honesty and trustworthiness as

well as his fitness to practice law.

{¶ 8} Armengau contends that (1) his disciplinary hearing should have

been stayed or continued until he exhausted all the direct appeals of his criminal

convictions (specifically, the appeal of the trial court’s resentencing judgment),

(2) the board improperly prevented him from presenting evidence regarding his

misconduct and the merits of his pending appeals at that hearing, and (3)

disbarment is not an appropriate sanction at this juncture.

{¶ 9} In response, relator contends that Armengau’s disciplinary

proceedings were stayed while the direct appeals of his convictions were pending.

But it argues that the stay was properly lifted after the court of appeals affirmed

his convictions and remanded the case for resentencing. Relator further asserts

that the board was not required to stay the disciplinary proceedings pending

Armengau’s appeal of the trial court’s resentencing judgment because that appeal

is a collateral—rather than a direct—appeal of his convictions.

{¶ 10} For the reasons that follow, we hold that Armengau’s appeal of the

trial court’s resentencing judgment is a direct appeal and that Gov.Bar R.

V(18)(C) therefore requires the board to stay any disciplinary proceeding based

2. At the time Armengau’s disciplinary case was submitted to this court, the appeal of his

resentencing judgment remained pending.

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

on those convictions. Accordingly, we sustain Armengau’s first objection,

conclude that our decision today renders his remaining objections unripe, and

remand this cause to the board with instructions to stay the proceedings until all

direct appeals of Armengau’s convictions have concluded.

{¶ 11} Gov.Bar R. V(18)(C) provides: “Any disciplinary proceeding

instituted against a judicial officer or an attorney based on a conviction of an

offense * * * shall not be brought to hearing until all direct appeals from the

conviction * * * are concluded.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, a stay is mandatory

whenever (1) the disciplinary proceeding is based on the respondent’s conviction

and (2) any direct appeal of that conviction remains pending.

{¶ 12} The rule does not define the phrase “direct appeals.” In Ohio Pyro,

Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 115 Ohio St.3d 375, 2007-Ohio-5024, 875

N.E.2d 550, ¶ 17-18, we addressed the distinction between a direct attack and a

collateral attack on a judgment. We quoted Black’s Law Dictionary 492 (8th

Ed.2004), which defines “direct attack” as

[a]n attack on a judgment made in the same proceeding as the one

in which the judgment was entered; specif., the taking of

proceedings in the action in which a judgment has been rendered to

have the judgment vacated or reversed or modified by appropriate

proceedings in either the trial court or an appellate court. •

Examples of direct attacks are motions for new trial and appeals.

Cf. COLLATERAL ATTACK.

(Capitalization sic.)

{¶ 13} In contrast, Black’s states that a “collateral attack” is

4

January Term, 2020

[a]n attack on a judgment in a proceeding other than a direct

appeal; esp., an attempt to undermine a judgment through a judicial

proceeding in which the ground of the proceeding (or a defense in

the proceeding) is that the judgment is ineffective. • A petition for

a writ of habeas corpus is one type of collateral attack.—Also

termed indirect attack. Cf. DIRECT ATTACK.

(Italics and capitalization sic.) Id. at 278.

{¶ 14} In this case, it is true that Armengau’s first direct appeal concluded

when this court declined to accept his appeal of the Tenth District Court of

Appeals’ judgment affirming the judgment of conviction in part, reversing it in

part, and remanding the case to the trial court for resentencing as to four counts.

However, the judgment of conviction on those four counts was no longer final

because Armengau’s sentence had been reversed with respect to those counts.

See State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163,

¶ 17-18 (holding that a judgment of conviction is a final, appealable order under

R.C. 2505.02 when it sets forth, in a single document, the finding of guilt, the

sentence, the signature of the judge, and entry on the journal by the clerk of

court). Once the trial court issued its amended judgment entry on March 28,

2018, there was a second final, appealable judgment of conviction that Armengau

had a right to appeal. See, e.g., State ex rel. White v. Woods, 156 Ohio St.3d 562,

2019-Ohio-1893, 130 N.E.3d 271, ¶ 8 (holding that a resentencing entry that

complies with Crim.R. 32(C) and Baker is a final, appealable order and that

appeal from that entry therefore is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of

the law). And that appeal—seeking to have the judgment vacated, reversed, or

modified in proceedings in the action in which it was rendered—is a direct appeal.

{¶ 15} Based on the foregoing, we sustain Armengau’s first objection to

the board’s report and recommendation, conclude that his remaining objections

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

are not ripe for review, and remand this cause to the board with instructions to

stay the proceedings until all direct appeals of Armengau’s convictions have

concluded. We reserve our ruling on the allocation of costs pending the final

disposition of this disciplinary proceeding.

Judgment accordingly.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and

STEWART, JJ., concur.

KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only.

_________________

David S. Bloomfield; Terry K. Sherman; Michael S. Loughry; and Kent R.

Markus, Bar Counsel, for relator.

Behal Law Group, L.L.C., and John M. Gonzales, for respondent.

_________________

6