State v. Robinson
2013 Ohio 2893
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Casey J. Robinson was indicted on aggravated robbery (1st-degree with firearm), theft, and two counts of felonious assault; he pled guilty to an amended Count 1: robbery (3rd-degree) with a firearm specification pursuant to a written plea agreement.
- The State agreed to nolle the remaining counts and made no sentencing recommendation; sentencing was left to the court.
- At sentencing the court imposed mandatory 3 years for the firearm specification plus 30 months for the robbery, to be served consecutively; post-release control of 3 years was imposed.
- Robinson challenged the 30‑month robbery term as an abuse of discretion and unconstitutional because he was a first‑time felony offender and the sentence was near-maximum.
- The trial court had a presentence investigation and discussed Robinson’s juvenile adjudications, prior convictions (assault, aggravated menacing, drug abuse, resisting arrest), lack of employment, and bond revocation for THC.
- The sentencing entry stated the court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and advised Robinson about post‑release control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 30‑month robbery sentence was an abuse of discretion/contrary to law | State: Sentence is within statutory range and court complied with sentencing statutes; no abuse shown | Robinson: As a first‑time felony offender, a near‑maximum 30‑month term is excessive and an abuse of discretion | Court: Sentence is within statutory range, court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, and the sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law nor an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (discusses appellate two‑step review post‑Foster)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (severed mandatory judicial fact‑finding provisions of sentencing statutes)
- State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (post‑Foster sentencing context)
- State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (interpretation of remaining sentencing statutes)
- Woosley v. United States, 478 F.2d 139 (sentence may be reversed if greatly excessive or predetermined)