Background
Alma Gray was indicted on charges of felonious assault with a firearm specification and endangering children. Gray pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) and requested NGRI evaluations. After multiple evaluations, she withdrew her NGRI plea and pleaded guilty to felonious assault. The trial court dismissed the firearm specification and endangering children charges and sentenced Gray to an indefinite prison term of four to six years. She appealed but later voluntarily dismissed it. Subsequently, Gray filed a pro se petition to vacate or set aside her conviction and sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
Legal Issue
Gray argued that her trial counsel’s ineffective assistance, particularly regarding advice on accepting a plea offer and ensuring a mental health expert’s availability for trial, led to her guilty plea being unknowing and involuntary. She requested an evidentiary hearing, but the trial court denied her petitions without one. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Gray’s petition without a hearing.
Court of Appeals Analysis
The Court held that the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were inadequate for meaningful appellate review. Specifically, the trial court did not sufficiently explain why it found Gray’s affidavit insufficient or how the State’s affidavit contradicted it. The Court concluded that the trial court’s failure to issue comprehensive findings prevented proper judicial review and violated the requirement for adequate explanation in postconviction relief cases.
Conclusion
The Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, ordering the trial court to issue proper findings of fact and conclusions of law. Gray’s first assignment of error was sustained, and her second assignment was overruled as moot.
State v. Gray, 9th Dist. Summit No. 31184, 2025-Ohio-363
Issue on Appeal: Sentencing Errors and the Trial Court’s Jurisdiction to Modify Judgment
Background
Javier Armengau, after being convicted of multiple charges including sexual battery, appealed his sentence multiple times. Following his conviction, the trial court sentenced him to a total of 13 years in prison. However, through multiple appeals, the court found errors in the original sentencing, including the improper merging of certain counts and the incorrect application of credits for time already served. The case was remanded for resentencing multiple times, leading to an amended judgment entry on November 8, 2022, and a subsequent correction on September 15, 2023, addressing credit for time served and Armengau’s release date.
Legal Issue
Armengau raised two key points on appeal in case No. 22AP-722. First, he argued that his conviction on Count 15 violated his Fifth Amendment rights due to double jeopardy because he had already served time for conduct underlying that charge. Second, he claimed that he was denied due process because the trial court did not credit him for more than 30 months of time served for the conduct underlying Count 15. In case No. 23AP-570, the State appealed the trial court’s correction of Armengau’s release date, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to make changes after Armengau had filed his appeal.
Court of Appeals Analysis
In case No. 22AP-722, the Court ruled that Armengau’s challenge to Count 15 based on double jeopardy was barred by res judicata, as the issue had already been decided in previous appeals. Regarding the second assignment of error, the Court upheld the trial court’s decision to apply only 30 months of credit for the conduct underlying Count 15, as he had served that time under a different count. In case No. 23AP-570, the Court agreed with the State’s argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify its sentencing after Armengau had filed his appeal. The trial court’s correction of the release date was deemed a substantive change rather than a clerical one, and as such, it was not authorized to issue a nunc pro tunc entry. The Court dismissed the State’s appeal due to lack of a final, appealable order.
Conclusion
In case No. 22AP-722, the Court overruled Armengau’s assignments of error and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. In case No. 23AP-570, the Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the trial court’s correction of the release date was not a final, appealable order.
State v. Armengau, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 22AP-722, 23AP-570, 2025-Ohio-354