State v. Roebuck
2012 Ohio 1859
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Roebuck was indicted Feb. 4, 2011 on rape, gross sexual imposition, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping with firearm specifications; pled guilty to rape and kidnapping with firearm specs April 20, 2011 under a plea that yielded a ten-year term.
- Sentence: seven years for rape and seven for kidnapping, with gun specs merged, aggregate ten years, to run concurrent with the agreed terms.
- Roebuck later moved to withdraw his plea alleging ineffective assistance; motion for leave to file a delayed appeal was filed Aug. 31, 2011 and granted Oct. 3, 2011; the withdrawal motion remained pending.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief identifying four potential assignments of error; Roebuck did not submit a pro se brief; this appeal concerns direct appeal of the conviction.
- Court independently reviewed the record and found no merit to any asserted issues; judgment affirmed against Roebuck.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Roebuck's plea knowingly and voluntarily entered? | State argues plea was knowing and voluntary. | Roebuck contends plea was not knowingly/voluntarily entered. | Plea was knowing and voluntary; Crim.R. 11 complied. |
| Is the ten-year sentence within legal limits and not an abuse of discretion? | State argues sentence within statutory range and agreed by plea. | Roebuck contends sentence is improper or excessive. | Sentence within law; not clearly/convincingly contrary to law; no abuse. |
| Was Roebuck's counsel ineffective? | State argues waiver due to knowing plea; no ineffective performance shown. | Roebuck asserts ineffective assistance. | No ineffective assistance shown; plea knowing/voluntary; waiver applies. |
| Did the trial court err in denying withdrawal of the guilty plea? | State argues motion wasn't properly before court due to lack of jurisdiction. | Roebuck argues denial of withdrawal was error. | Motion not properly before appellate court; affirmance of prior ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (two-step sentencing review framework; compliance and discretion standards)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (plea must be knowing and voluntary)
- State v. McGrady, 2010-Ohio-3243 (Ohio 2010) (Crim.R.11 requirements and knowing/voluntary plea)
- State v. Money, 2010-Ohio-6225 (Ohio 2010) (abuse-of-discretion sentencing review; within range not reversible)
- State v. Bailum, 2008-Ohio-2999 (Ohio 2008) (generally, within-range sentences are not an abuse of discretion)