STATE OF OHIO v. PAUL ROBINSON
No. 101426
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
December 11, 2014
[Cite as State v. Robinson, 2014-Ohio-5435.]
BEFORE: Celebrezze, P.J., E.T. Gallagher, J., and Stewart, J.
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-06-483238-A
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 11, 2014
Paul Robinson, pro se
Inmate No. 514-468
Trumbull Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 901
Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Mary McGrath
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J.:
I. Procedural History
{¶2} On July 20, 2006, appellant was charged with attempted murder in violation of
{¶3} Trial was scheduled to begin on October 30, 2006. Prior to trial, the trial court engaged in a lengthy dialogue with appellant concerning whether he wished to plead to the charges or proceed to trial. Ultimately, defense counsel advised that appellant wished to go to trial, and jury selection began. Following a recess, however, appellant indicated that he wished to plead to the indictment. The trial court informed appellant that he would be sentenced on the spot and that the court would not guarantee the duration of his sentence. Appellant indicated that he understood.
{¶4} Following a
{¶5} For purposes of sentencing, the victim made a statement on the record. Thereafter, defense counsel indicated that appellant wished to withdraw his plea and go to trial. The trial court denied this request stating, “we‘re not playing that game.” The trial court proceeded to sentence appellant to a total period of incarceration of 15 years.
{¶7} Subsequently, appellant filed a direct appeal claiming that the trial court abused its discretion by accepting his plea, by failing to grant his motion to withdraw his plea, and by failing to order a competency examination before accepting his plea. Significantly, appellant did not challenge his sentence. On December 20, 2007, this court affirmed the trial court‘s judgment. State v. Robinson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 89136, 2007-Ohio-6831.1
{¶8} On May 21, 2008, the Supreme Court of Ohio denied appellant‘s motion for leave to appeal and dismissed his appeal as not involving any substantial constitutional question. State v. Robinson, 118 Ohio St.3d 1409, 2008-Ohio-2340, 886 N.E.2d 872.
{¶9} Thereafter, appellant filed an application to reopen his appeal with this court, asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel. On April 6, 2009, this court denied appellant‘s application in State v. Robinson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 89136, 2009-Ohio-1679.
{¶10} Over six years later, on April 25, 2014, appellant filed a motion for “resentencing on multiple punishments.” Appellant argued that his convictions should have merged as allied offenses under
II. Law and Analysis
{¶12} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that his 15-year sentence was contrary to law. In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court failed to merge allied offenses of similar import and that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made. We consider appellant‘s first and second assignments of error together.
{¶13} Initially, we note that this court has already determined that appellant‘s plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Robinson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 89136, 2007-Ohio-6831. Moreover, to the extent appellant argues that his sentence was contrary to law because the trial court failed to merge allied offenses, his challenge is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
{¶14} The doctrine of res judicata bars the consideration of issues that could have been raised on direct appeal. State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, ¶ 17. This court has recognized that the issue of whether two offenses constitute allied offenses subject to merger must be raised on direct appeal from a conviction, or res judicata will bar a subsequent attempt to raise the issue. State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100135, 2014-Ohio-1239, ¶ 9, citing State v. Allen, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97552, 2012-Ohio-3364, ¶ 20; State v. Poole, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94759, 2011-Ohio-716, ¶ 13; State v. Flagg, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 95958 and 95986, 2011-Ohio-5386.
{¶15} In this case, appellant argued on direct appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by accepting his plea, by failing to grant his motion to withdraw his plea, and by failing to order a competency examination before accepting his plea. Appellant raised no issues
{¶16} Appellant‘s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
{¶17} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., and
MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCUR