State v. Robinson
2017 Ohio 2773
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- William L. Robinson, Jr. was indicted for aggravated burglary and sexual battery; a jury convicted him on both counts and the trial court imposed an aggregate 13-year prison term.
- Robinson appealed; the trial transcript was filed in the court of appeals on August 30, 2013, and this court affirmed his convictions on February 13, 2014.
- On August 22, 2016 (nearly two years after the 365‑day postconviction filing deadline), Robinson filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and insufficient evidence for aggravated burglary.
- The state opposed the petition; the trial court denied relief on December 8, 2016, without issuing extended findings, stating the petition was "not well taken."
- The court of appeals reviewed the denial, held the petition untimely under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) and jurisdictionally barred, and alternatively found Robinson's claims barred by res judicata because the evidence and issues could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / Jurisdiction of postconviction petition | State: Petition filed beyond the 365‑day statutory deadline; court lacks jurisdiction unless statutory exceptions apply | Robinson: Petition should be considered despite delay; claims of ineffective assistance and insufficient evidence warrant review | Held: Petition untimely (trial transcript filed 8/30/2013; deadline 8/30/2014; petition filed 8/22/2016). No applicable R.C. 2953.23 exceptions; court lacked jurisdiction |
| Merits — ineffective assistance of counsel (DNA/experts and failure to present prior consistent statement) | State: Claims are untimely and barred by res judicata; evidence was available at trial or on direct appeal | Robinson: Trial counsel failed to request/explore DNA analyses and failed to present prior consistent statement, constituting ineffective assistance | Held: Even if timely, claims are barred by res judicata because they were or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal; no newly discovered evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated burglary | State: Jury verdict sustained by the trial record | Robinson: Conviction not supported by sufficient evidence | Held: Sufficiency claim is barred by res judicata and was not proper in untimely postconviction petition |
| Applicability of postconviction relief standards | State: Postconviction is narrowly circumscribed civil collateral relief; petitioner must meet statutory timing or exception rules | Robinson: Seeks postconviction relief based on constitutional errors at trial | Held: Court applied R.C. 2953.21 timing rules and res judicata doctrine; denied relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Gondor v. State, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (standard for reviewing postconviction findings and scope of collateral review)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion defined)
- Reynolds v. State, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (postconviction petitions treated as collateral attacks and subject to R.C. 2953.21 timing)
- Perry v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (postconviction relief limited to claims that render judgment void or voidable under constitution)
- Cole v. State, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (1982) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- Szefcyk v. State, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996) (res judicata applies to postconviction proceedings)
- Steffen v. State, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (1994) (postconviction review is narrow; res judicata bars claims raised at trial or on direct appeal)
- Calhoun v. State, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (postconviction relief is civil collateral attack; distinguishes direct appeal issues)