State v. Robinson
2017 Ohio 2703
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Montre O. Robinson was indicted for murder (R.C. 2903.02(A)) with a firearm-specification (R.C. 2941.146) and tampering with evidence after the November 8, 2013 shooting death of Joe Gutierrez.
- Robinson pleaded not guilty; jury trial occurred October 2014 and returned guilty verdicts on the murder, specification, and tampering counts.
- Trial court sentenced Robinson to an indefinite life term with parole eligibility after 15 years on the murder count, 5 years on the firearm specification, and 24 months on tampering — all consecutive.
- Robinson filed a delayed appeal raising two assignments of error: (1) consecutive sentences unsupported by the record (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)), and (2) trial court abused discretion by refusing to include the word "purposely" when answering a jury question about principal/accomplice liability.
- The court considered whether the statutory consecutive-sentence findings were made and whether the court’s response to the jury’s question misstated the law or misled the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were supported by the record under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | State pointed to the trial court’s on-the-record findings and sentencing entry satisfying the statutory requirements | Robinson argued the record did not support the (b) and (c) factors (harm "so great or unusual" and criminal-history necessity) and thus consecutive terms were improper | Affirmed: Court found the trial court made the required findings on the record and in the entry; (a) defendant was under probation at time of offenses, satisfying R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) so consecutive sentences were not contrary to law |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in responding to jury question about principal/accomplice liability | State maintained the court’s answer correctly explained that conviction of the principal is not required to convict an aider/abettor and that the response supplemented instructions | Robinson argued the court should have included the element "purposely" when clarifying the law to the jury | Affirmed: Court concluded the jury asked about principal liability, not the mens rea element of murder; the response was a correct legal statement and did not mislead the jury |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must state and incorporate required consecutive-sentence findings into the record)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate review standard: reverse only if record lacks support by clear and convincing evidence or sentence otherwise contrary to law)
- State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 (1995) (trial court has discretion in responding to jury requests for clarification; reversal requires abuse of that discretion)
- State v. Graven, 52 Ohio St.2d 112 (1977) (aiders and abettors may be prosecuted independently; principal’s conviction not prerequisite to convict aider/abettor)