State v. Robinson
2011 Ohio 1737
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Robinson was convicted by no contest plea to escape in 2008 after allegedly violating post-release control.
- Robinson’s 1997 conviction for attempted murder carried a mandatory five-year post-release-control term but his 1997 judgment stated post-release control was optional for three years.
- The 1997 judgment entry failed to reflect the statutorily mandated five-year term and thus did not notify the APA to supervise post-release control.
- Robinson’s 2008 escape alleged events occurred within three years of his 1997 release, raising whether post-release control existed to support the charge.
- Trial court denied Robinson’s motion to withdraw his plea in 2010, and Robinson appealed challenging the withdrawal denial and the post-release-control validity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether void post-release control defeats escape conviction | Robinson lacks legally valid detention due to void post-release control | Escape may be proven despite defects in post-release control | Yes; conviction/vacated due to void post-release control. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying withdrawal of plea | Motion to withdraw plea was proper due to manifest injustice | Motion improperly denied | Denied; however, on other issues the plea withdrawal was compelled. |
| Does Jordan/related cases control whether post-release control defects affect escape liability | Authorizes proving detention notwithstanding imperfect notice | Jordan does not resolve post-release-control-viability issues here | Court followed related authority to vacate conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. North, 2007 Ohio 5383 (Ohio 2007) (defendant not advised of post-release control; impact on plea withdrawal and detention)
- State v. Renner, 2011-Ohio-502 (Ohio 2011) (void post-release-control supervision cannot support escape; supports withdrawal/voided sentence)
- State v. Billeter, 2009 Ohio 2709 (Ohio 2009) (escape on post-release control less than stated duration; distinguishable facts)
- State v. Bloomer, 2009-Ohio-2462 (Ohio 2009) (requirement to notify and journalize post-release control; both necessary)
- State v. Fischer, 2010-Ohio-6238 (Ohio 2010) (post-release-control messaging and validity; correction of earlier errors)
- State v. Jordan, 2010-Ohio-281 (Ohio 2010) (addressed whether notice is necessary to prove post-release-control; not controlling on all questions)
- State v. Terry, 2010-Ohio-5391 (Ohio 2010) (emphasizes basic requirements of notification and journalization)
- Watkins v. Collins, 2006-Ohio-5082 (Ohio 2006) (habeas corpus discussion; distinguishable procedural posture for direct appeal)