Login | March 29, 2024

Man who stalked, assaulted estranged wife loses appeal

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News

Published: February 5, 2016

Domestic violence and burglary convictions out of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas were affirmed recently when a court of appeals reviewed the case of Orlando Machuca.

In an opinion authored by Judge Richard Rogers, the 3rd District Court of Appeals held that Machuca’s rights were not violated during trial proceedings.

At a jury trial that commenced on Oct. 14, 2014, Machuca’s estranged wife testified that, in the fall of 2012, she moved from Lima, Ohio to Miami, Okla. to move in with her father and begin a new job in Joplin, Mo. There, she met Machuca and the two were married a few months later.

The victim testified that Machuca became physically abusive shortly after their marriage and, in early 2013, she moved out of the marital home after Machuca threw a telephone at her head.

At her father’s request, the victim began taking alternate routes to and from work in order to avoid contact with Machuca but, in June 2013, she spotted Machuca’s vehicle as she was getting off a highway.

In describing that incident, the victim explained, “I was going maybe 80 mph and I thought he was gone and I was just trying to get away ... And he hit me, he was driving a BMW and he put the side of it into my car three times.”

Onlookers called 911 after the victim lost control of her car, exited the vehicle and ran from Machuca as he was threatening to kill her.

In order to escape, the victim had to run across a turnpike and climb over a center concrete barrier.

Machuca fled the scene but was eventually arrested and charged with assault.

After he was released on bond, the victim fled to her mother’s home in Ottawa, Ohio.

She testified that she altered her phone’s GPS signal so that it appeared to be originating from another state in order to avoid Machuca, but he followed her to Ohio and one day appeared at her new job.

Court documents state that, later that same day, Machuca tried to enter the victim’s car while she was in it, breaking the door handle in the process.

That same month, the victim was stopped at a red light in Lima when Machuca suddenly pulled her car door open and dragged her across the pavement, telling onlookers that she was on drugs and he was trying to help.

After that incident, Machuca was convicted of domestic violence in Lima Municipal Court and then extradited back to Missouri to face charges related to the highway incident.

The victim testified that she believed Machuca was “locked up” at that point.

However, in February 2014, the victim was cooking dinner in a new residence when Machuca sneaked in and grabbed her by the throat, instigating a struggle during which she yelled for help. Machuca fled when the victim’s son threatened to call the police and he was later arrested.

According to Machuca, he never harmed his estranged wife; he maintained that his actions stemmed from a desire to help her overcome a drug addiction.

Ultimately, a jury found Machuca guilty of burglary and domestic violence and he was sentenced to nine years and six months in prison.

Appealing from that judgment, Machuca argued that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of prior domestic violence incidents.

“We disagree,” wrote Rogers, noting that evidence of other crimes is admissible if used to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, identity or absence of mistake.

The court of appeals noted that the victim took affirmative steps to avoid Machuca prior to the final incident that led to his imprisonment, including moving out of their marital home, changing her routes to and from work, moving across state lines and altering her phone’s GPS signal.

“Despite her efforts, (the victim) testified that (Machuca) followed her and repeatedly initiated violent contact,” Rogers wrote.

Given that those acts all occurred less than one year from the most recent incident and involved the same victim and subject matter, the appellate panel held that it could not find that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence in order to establish Machuca’s intent.

In another assignment of error, Machuca claimed that the trial court should have appointed him new counsel because there was a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

“However, we cannot find that the trial court’s refusal to appoint new counsel was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable in light of the fact that appellant’s complaints stemmed from his erroneous belief that (his lawyer) had violated his right to a speedy trial,” Rogers wrote.

Accordingly, the reviewing court also overruled Machuca’s other assignment of error in which he claimed that his speedy trial rights were violated.

“Having found no error prejudicial to appellant, in the particular assigned and argued, we affirmed the judgment of the trial court,” Rogers concluded.

Judges John Willamowski and Vernon Preston concurred.

The case is cited State v. Machuca, 2016-Ohio-254.

Copyright © 2016 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved


[Back]