State v. Robinson
2017 Ohio 7380
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2003 a jury convicted Glenn D. Robinson of multiple counts including two aggravated murders and one murder (counts 1–3), with accompanying firearm specifications; he also pleaded guilty to felonious assault. The court imposed concurrent sentences and various firearm findings; Robinson was sentenced to life with parole eligibility after 38 years.
- On direct appeal the court found problems with Robinson’s guilty plea to felonious assault but affirmed the other convictions; Robinson later re-pleaded to felonious assault and did not appeal that conviction.
- In 2010 the trial court attempted to resentence Robinson to correct a post-release control defect; this Court partially vacated that resentencing but upheld imposition of post-release control.
- In 2016 Robinson moved to vacate void sentences under State v. Williams, arguing the trial court had found counts 1–3 to be allied offenses and thus should not have imposed separate (even concurrent) sentences; he sought resentencing and argued the State should be required to elect at a hearing which allied count to pursue.
- The State filed a memorandum electing to keep Robinson sentenced on count 1 and asked the court to vacate counts 2 and 3; the trial court entered an order vacating counts 2 and 3 and re-imposing the original sentence on count 1 (life with parole eligibility after 20 years).
- Robinson appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) the State must make its election at resentencing (not by memorandum), (2) prior and current sentencing entries are not final because of alleged missing verdicts on firearm specifications, and (3) he was denied presence and counsel at the December 21, 2016 resentencing. The Ninth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State may make its election of which allied offense to proceed on via memorandum rather than at a resentencing hearing | State: its election to have Robinson sentenced on Count 1 was appropriate and binding; election controls which allied offense is sentenced | Robinson: the State must elect at a resentencing hearing so defendant can contest the election; election by memorandum denies that opportunity | Court: Election by the State is controlling; memorandum election was valid and no resentencing was required because the court had no discretion to impose separate sentences on merged counts |
| Whether the trial court violated Robinson’s right to be present and to counsel by disposing of allied-offense sentencing via journal entry rather than a live resentencing hearing | Robinson: he was entitled to be physically present and represented at a resentencing where the State’s election was made | State: no new discretionary sentencing was required; court simply corrected a void sentence consistent with Williams and the State’s election; no right to a de novo hearing | Court: No error; vacating the void sentences and re-imposing the original sentence on Count 1 by entry was proper given the State’s election and the limited remedial scope under Williams |
| Whether sentencing entries (including Dec. 21, 2016) are final appealable orders because jury allegedly failed to return verdicts on firearm specifications | Robinson: Crim.R. 32(C) requires the judgment to set forth verdicts on specifications; here jury did not return verdicts on each firearm spec so entries are not final | State: record shows jury returned firearm-specification findings on counts 1–5; trial court later merged four specs at sentencing leaving the Count 1 spec | Court: Record shows jury found firearm specifications; Crim.R. 32(C) requirements satisfied; entries are final and appealable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403, 2016-Ohio-7658 (Ohio 2016) (allied-offenses merger rule; remedy for void sentences; resentencing not always required)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238 (Ohio 2010) (resentencing limited to correcting void sentences is a proper remedy)
- State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319, 2010-Ohio-2 (Ohio 2010) (state’s election controls which allied offense is sentenced)
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330 (Ohio 2008) (former Crim.R. 32(C) elements for a final appealable judgment of conviction)
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204 (Ohio 2011) (refinement of the Baker standard for when a judgment of conviction is a final appealable order)