State v. Roberson, 2021 Ohio 3705

Background

Appellant Mason D. Roberson was indicted for aggravated robbery (first-degree felony) and robbery (second-degree felony), each with a firearm specification, after a May 30, 2020 Days Inn armed robbery.
Robbery surveillance showed three masked men; “Male #1” was filmed with his mask slipping, revealed facial features, a right‑arm/wrist tattoo, tall/slim build, left‑handed weapon handling, and a dimpled chin.
Police linked Roberson to Male #1 via (1) detectives’ in‑person identifications comparing height, build, facial features, tattoo, and left‑handedness, (2) recovery of AR‑15 magazines and a .9 mm handgun associated with occupants of Roberson’s residence/vehicles, (3) cell‑phone videos and texts connecting Roberson with co‑defendants and weapons, and (4) Roberson’s statements suggesting involvement.
Roberson waived a jury trial and was convicted after a bench trial; robbery counts merged and he was sentenced under Reagan Tokes to an indefinite 6–9 year term for aggravated robbery plus a consecutive 3‑year firearm term (aggregate 9–12 years).
On appeal Roberson raised: invalid jury waiver, manifest‑weight insufficiency re: identity, Reagan Tokes unconstitutionality and ineffective assistance for failing to challenge it, and failure to give mandatory R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notifications at sentencing. The court affirmed the conviction, rejected the constitutional/ineffective‑assistance claims, but reversed and remanded solely for resentencing to supply the statutorily required notifications.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Roberson)	Held
Validity of jury‑waiver (R.C. 2945.05 "in open court" requirement)	Waiver was valid: court conducted an on‑the‑record colloquy in open court and a signed written waiver was filed and made part of the record.	Waiver invalid because the written waiver was not signed or acknowledged on the record in open court; thus court lacked jurisdiction for a bench trial.	Waiver valid. Colloquy (defendant affirmed understanding and desire to waive) plus a filed signed waiver met R.C. 2945.05 and Lomax’s "acknowledge in open court" requirement.
Manifest‑weight challenge to identity evidence	Evidence (clear surveillance of Male #1, tattoo, left‑handedness, detectives’ IDs, phone/video/magazine/gun evidence, and Roberson’s statements) supports conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.	State’s evidence was circumstantial and insufficient to connect Roberson to the robbery—at most shows association with co‑defendants.	Conviction affirmed on manifest‑weight review. The circumstantial evidence and corroborating physical and testimonial evidence did not make the verdict a miscarriage of justice.
Constitutionality of Reagan Tokes (R.C. 2967.271)	Issue forfeited because Roberson did not raise a constitutional challenge in the trial court; appellate precedent at the time upheld Reagan Tokes.	Reagan Tokes is unconstitutional (various constitutional claims).	Forfeited. Court declined to consider the constitutional challenge because it was not raised below.
Ineffective assistance for not challenging Reagan Tokes; sentencing notifications (R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c))	Counsel was not ineffective; statutes presumed constitutional and prevailing precedent supported that view. On notifications, trial court adequately warned generally about minimum and maximum terms.	Counsel ineffective for failing to preserve constitutional challenge. Trial court failed to give all five mandatory notices required for non‑life indefinite terms under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c).	Counsel not ineffective. But sentencing error found: trial court omitted several required R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notices (e.g., requirement of DRC hearing to rebut presumption, factors DRC must consider, that DRC can maintain confinement more than once). Sentence reversed and remanded solely for the limited purpose of providing the statutorily required notifications; conviction and term lengths otherwise affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (Supreme Court 1968) (Sixth Amendment jury right applied to the states)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Bradley v. Washington, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (ineffective‑assistance test as adopted by Ohio)
State v. Pless, 74 Ohio St.3d 333 (Ohio 1996) (strict compliance with R.C. 2945.05 required for waiver jurisdictional effect)
State v. Lomax, 114 Ohio St.3d 350 (Ohio 2007) ("in open court" waiver requirement requires some on‑the‑record acknowledgement)
State v. Jells, 53 Ohio St.3d 22 (Ohio 1990) (trial court questioning helps satisfy open‑court waiver requirement)
State v. Bays, 87 Ohio St.3d 15 (Ohio 1999) (discussing elements of valid jury waiver)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (manifest‑weight review standard)