Date set for arguments in Garcia appeal
Apr. 22—Arguments are scheduled to be heard in Phil Garcia's appeal of compelling prostitution and sexual imposition charges.
Oral arguments will be June 15, according to court records. Lawyers for Garcia and the state will have 15 minutes each to make their cases to the appeals court.
In May, 2020, Garcia, 65, a former business owner, high school sports referee, and Conneaut City Council member, pleaded guilty to seven counts, including four counts of compelling prostitution and seven counts of sexual imposition.
In July, 2020, Garcia was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Two days before he was scheduled to be sentenced, Garcia's attorney, Reid Yoder, filed a motion to withdraw Garcia's guilty plea, and the day before sentencing, Yoder filed an objection to the pre-sentencing investigation and a motion to delay the sentencing, according to court records.
The state and Garcia's appeal agree on one of nine issues Yoder raised, that on three of the counts, the judge sentenced Garcia to more than the maximum for the charge.
A law that went into effect in 2011 reduced the maximum sentence for compelling prostitution from five years to three, according to briefs filed by both sides. Garcia was sentenced to five years in prison on three of the compelling prostitution charges, and three years on the fourth.
Both sides recommend Garcia be resentenced in the briefs filed in this case, but the state's motion recommends the resentencing only include the three counts that exceeded the maximum sentence.
Garcia's appeal claims that he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. Yoder argued at sentencing that Garcia was suffering from depression and anxiety, which caused him to plead guilty. The COVID-19 pandemic is also noted as a reason to allow Garcia's plea to be withdrawn in appeal documents filed by Yoder.
The state's reply claims Garcia did not have a reasonable and legitimate cause to withdraw his plea.
Garcia's appeal also claims that the judge failed to consider mitigating factors when sentencing Garcia. The state's brief quoted Judge David Fuhry, who heard the case, discussing his reasons for the sentence.
"These crimes were sex crimes planned and meticulously executed on Mr. Garcia's part, designed to avoid detection," Fuhry said.
The appeal claims that Garcia did not knowingly enter into the plea deal, because Fuhry did not specifically tell Garcia he would be unable to appeal pretrial rulings because he pleaded guilty.
The state cited language in the written plea agreement, which Garcia signed, which said he would be unable to appeal pre-trial rulings due to pleading guilty.
The appeal also resurrects a pair of old claims, that the court should have separated the case into individual cases for each victim, and that the state should turn over recorded phone calls to the defense, both of which were rejected by Fuhry at various points.
