State v. Robinson
2016 Ohio 2931
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Paul Robinson pleaded no contest to attempted murder, felonious assault, kidnapping, and domestic violence; trial court sentenced him to an aggregate 15-year prison term.
- Robinson previously appealed and challenged his plea and competency; those challenges were rejected and his direct appeal and a later application to reopen were denied.
- Robinson filed a motion to correct sentence asserting (a) ambiguous sentencing entry regarding order of service, (b) defective postrelease-control advisement, (c) that attempted felony murder is not cognizable and kidnapping degree error, and (d) improper imposition of consecutive sentences without R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.
- The appellate court initially issued an opinion but granted reconsideration because it failed to address Robinson’s fourth assignment of error after allowing supplementation of his brief; the earlier opinion was vacated and replaced with this decision.
- Court held Robinson’s sentencing challenges largely barred by res judicata, sustained only the postrelease-control claim in part, and remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry to correct omission in the journal entry regarding consequences of violating postrelease control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Robinson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing entry is ambiguous because it fails to specify order in which sentences are to be served | Any challenge is barred by res judicata; entry need not spell sequence to be valid | Entry is ambiguous and reversible for failing to specify order of service | Overruled: res judicata bars the claim; even on merits no requirement that sentencing entries specify sequence |
| Whether postrelease-control advisement and journal entry were defective | Trial court complied at sentencing; omission in journal entry can be corrected by nunc pro tunc since prison term not completed | Sentencing entry failed to include consequences of PRC violation; resentencing required | Sustained in part: transcript shows proper advisal; nunc pro tunc entry should be made to add omitted consequences; no new hearing required |
| Whether attempted felony murder conviction is void and kidnapping degree was erroneous | State: Robinson was convicted of attempted murder (R.C. 2903.02(A)), not attempted felony murder; kidnapping claim barred by res judicata | Robinson: attempted felony murder not cognizable; kidnapping should be reduced to second degree because victim was released unharmed | Overruled: conviction was for attempted murder, not attempted felony murder; kidnapping/degree challenge barred by res judicata |
| Whether trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without making R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings | Sentencing findings required only when imposing consecutive sentences for multiple offenses; here sentences were concurrent — specification sequencing does not trigger R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Court failed to make statutorily required findings for consecutive sentences | Overruled: res judicata bars collateral attack; court imposed concurrent sentences as to counts, and consecutive service of repeat-violent-offender specifications does not trigger the R.C. consecutive-sentence findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012) (trial court must provide statutorily compliant postrelease-control notification and include it in the sentencing entry)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004) (same: required advisement and incorporation of postrelease-control in sentencing entry)
- State v. Nolan, 141 Ohio St.3d 454 (2014) (attempted felony murder is not a cognizable offense in Ohio)
- State v. Robinson, 118 Ohio St.3d 1409 (2008) (Ohio Supreme Court entry denying leave to appeal from Robinson’s direct appeal)