Staff file photo / Ed Runyan Sergio F. Gonzalez III, 24, right, has appealed his July conviction on two counts of rape. His trial attorney was Aaron Meikle.

YOUNGSTOWN — The unusual rape case of Sergio F. Gonzalez III, 24, has resulted in a similarly unusual set of facts being argued in his 7th District Court of Appeals case.

Mahoning County Common Pleas Court Judge John Durkin sentenced Gonzalez to 10 years to life in prison in July after Gonzalez was convicted at trial of two counts of rape. The girl he was convicted of raping sometimes stayed at the foster home in Youngstown where Gonzalez lived with his grandmother, but the girl was not a foster child, according to prosecutors.

The rapes occurred in early 2018 when the girl was under 13 and Gonzalez was 17, prosecutors stated in a filing by Kristie Weibling, assistant county prosecutor.

Mark Lavelle, Gonzalez’s appeals attorney, argued that two errors in the trial took place — that Durkin erroneously allowed testimony from Gonzalez’s grandmother regarding the “unsubstantiated and uncharged prior sexual history” of Sergio Gonzalez and that Gonzalez received “ineffective assistance” from his trial attorney, Aaron Meikle.

Katheline Gonzalez, Sergio Gonzalez’s grandmother, testified that Sergio Gonzalez was never in trouble and that her home was a safe place. But when her testimony was over, Durkin held a hearing in his chambers with Meikle and Kevin Day, an assistant county prosecutor, according to the prosecution filing in the appeal.

During that hearing, Day argued that Katheline Gonzalez’s testimony contained “inconsistent statements” because of what she told Youngstown police detective Kelly Jankowski during the investigation of the rapes, the prosecution filing states.

When the trial resumed in the courtroom, Durkin allowed Day to cross examine Katheline Gonzalez about her inconsistent statements, and Katheline Gonzalez testified that her grandson “was engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with two foster children that resided in (Katheline Gonzalez’s) home,” the prosecution filing states.

Katheline Gonzalez testified that she notified the children services agencies that placed the two foster children in her care and requested their removal from her home, the prosecution filing states.

“She further testified that (Sergio Gonzalez) had a pending drug charge, but he had never been in major trouble,” the prosecution filing states.

The defense filing states that Durkin erred in allowing Katheline Gonzalez to be questioned about her grandson’s prior sexual and criminal history because a defendant’s “prior sexual activity is generally inadmissible unless it falls within specific exceptions.” Lavelle argued that the Gonzalez case did not meet any of the exceptions.

“Even if one of those exceptions applies, the court must still determine that the evidence is material to a fact at issue and that its (factualness) as evidence outweighs its inflammatory or prejudicial nature,” Lavelle’s filing stated. “Here the State argued to the court that Katheline Gonzalez’s testimony that her house was a ‘safe house’ opened the door for her to be cross examined on the … allegations that (Sergio Gonzalez) had two prior sexual relationships with foster children that were placed in her house,” the defense filing states.

The cross examination of Katheline Gonzalez was “devastating to the defendant,” the defense filing states.

Katheline Gonzalez testified about a relationship between Sergio Gonzalez and a specific foster child that was “never substantiated,” the defense filing states, adding “The court should have excluded this evidence under the rape shield law.”

PROSECUTION

The prosecution’s response states that Day appropriately applied the Ohio Rules of Evidence to discredit Katheline Gonzalez’s testimony because Sergio Gonzalez through his attorney “waived the protections of the rape shield law by offering evidence in his case that his home was a safe place, and he was of good moral character.”

During her investigation, Jankowski interviewed Katheline Gonzalez, who “informed officer Jankowski that (Sergio Gonzalez) engaged in consensual sexual relationships with two female foster children that no longer reside in the home,” the prosecution filing states.

During a hearing in the judge’s chambers, Meikle “acknowledged the door was opened related to the environment in the home of Katheline Gonzalez, the character of (Sergio Gonzalez) and the sexual relationships between the minor children in her care and / or custody,” the prosecution filing states.

The shield law protects the victim and defendant in rape crimes, but the protections of the rape law “are not absolute, and a defendant waives those protections when he opens the door to prior conduct,” the prosecution filing states.

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE

As for whether Sergio Gonzalez received ineffective assistance from Meikle, Lavelle argued that Meikle was ineffective because he “opened the door” to more questions being asked of Katheline Gonzalez regarding the “safe house” remark she made during her initial testimony.

Secondly, Meikle “conceded” that prosecutors were allowed to question Katheline Gonzalez regarding her grandson’s misdemeanor marijuana possession conviction, Lavelle argued.

Lavelle said the testimony Katheline Gonzales gave regarding her grandson’s marijuana possession conviction also was “devastating” to her grandson’s case.

The prosecution filing on whether Meikle’s representation was ineffective stated that for a conviction be overturned on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, an attorney’s work must have fallen “below an objective standard of reasonableness” and the attorney’s performance must have “prejudiced the defendant, resulting in a unreliable or fundamentally unfair outcome of the proceeding.”

In this case, Lavelle “did not prove either element,” the prosecution filing states.

The appeal is likely to be set for oral arguments in the coming weeks.