State v. Robinson
2020 Ohio 6978
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Michael W. Robinson was indicted for attempted grand theft (firearm) and breaking and entering after being found alone inside Associated Buyers (a gun shop) early on June 2, 2018.
- Officers observed a broken window, muddy shoeprints outside and matching prints inside, and repositioned rifles in the firearms area; a Ruger 10/22 was identified as operable.
- Police found Robinson inside the store near the firearms area, lying by the display case with an empty duffle bag; pliers were on the handgun display case.
- Crime-scene samples (blood from the broken window and skin cells on the pliers) matched Robinson’s DNA; Facebook Messenger messages from Robinson said he was “about to do something bad.”
- Robinson testified he has PTSD and blackouts, denied ownership of the pliers, and claimed he was going to a card game; the jury convicted him on both counts.
- At sentencing the court imposed concurrent prison terms and ordered Robinson to pay court costs; Robinson appealed, challenging sufficiency/manifest weight and the imposition of costs.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Robinson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence for attempted grand theft (firearm operability & intent) and breaking & entering | Evidence (broken window, entry, moved rifles, operable Ruger per owner, pliers with Robinson’s DNA, blood, FB messages) supports operability and intent to steal; convictions should stand | Evidence insufficient to prove the firearm was operable or that he intended to steal; blackout defense negates purposeful intent | Affirmed. Owner’s testimony established operability; circumstantial and direct evidence (DNA, moved rifles, messages) sufficed for intent. Blackout is an affirmative defense and does not negate sufficiency; convictions not against manifest weight |
| Trial court’s imposition of court costs | Court costs of prosecution are mandatory under R.C. 2947.23 and may be imposed | Trial court failed to specify costs and erred by not determining Robinson’s ability to pay | Affirmed. Mandatory prosecution costs may be imposed without an ability-to-pay finding; court did not impose other costs requiring such a finding |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Ireland, 155 Ohio St.3d 287 (Ohio 2018) (blackout is an affirmative defense)
- State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (Ohio 2006) (treatment of affirmative defenses in sufficiency review)