State v. Robinson , 2022 Ohio 3566 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Robinson, 2022-Ohio-3566.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-
Case No. CT2022-0032
JOSHUA A. ROBINSON
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Muskingum County
Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
CR2017-0251
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 6, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
RONALD L. WELCH JOSHUA A. ROBINSON
Prosecuting Attorney A741913
Muskingum County, Ohio Lebanon Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 56
TAYLOR P. BENNINGTON Lebanon, Ohio 45036
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Muskingum County, Ohio
27 North Fifth Street
P.O. Box 189
Zanesville, Ohio 43702-0189
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0032 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Joshua A. Robinson appeals the May 13, 2022
Judgment Entry entered by the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, which
denied his petition for post-conviction relief. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
{¶2} On July 19, 2017, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on
one count of felonious assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), a felony of the second
degree, with a repeat-violent-offender (“RVO”) specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.149.
Appellant appeared before the trial court for arraignment on August 9, 2017, and entered
a plea of not guilty.
{¶3} The matter proceeded to trial on February 1, 2018. Prior to the
commencement of trial, Appellant waived his right to a jury trial on the RVO specification.
After hearing all of the evidence and deliberating, the jury found Appellant guilty of
felonious assault. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty of the RVO
specification.
{¶4} Appellant appeared before the trial court for sentencing on February 14,
2018. The trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of incarceration of eight (8) years on
the felonious assault conviction and a mandatory consecutive term of incarceration of ten
(10) years on the RVO specification for an aggregate sentence of eighteen (18) years.
{¶5} Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal to this Court, raising the following
assignments of error:
1 A Statement of the Facts underlying Appellant’s convictions and sentence is not necessary for our
disposition of this Appeal.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0032 3
I. ROBINSON'S CONVICTION IS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE, IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION AND SECTIONS 1 & 16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION.
II. ROBINSON'S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND SECTIONS 1 & 16, ARTICLE I
OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
III. THE TRIAL COURT UNLAWFULLY ORDERED ROBINSON TO
SERVE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES, IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS
TO DUE PROCESS, GUARANTEED BY SECTION 10, ARTICLE 1 OF
THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
IV. ROBINSON RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL, IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 10, ARTICLE I OF THE
OHIO CONSTITUTION.
{¶6} This Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentence in State v.
Robinson, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2018-0016, 2018-Ohio-5381, 2018 WL 6921245.
On March 14, 2022, Appellant filed a pro se Request for New Trial, Modify
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0032 4
Verdict/Sentence. Via Judgment Entry filed March 15, 2022, the trial court denied
Appellant’s motion. On May 12, 2022, Appellant filed a pro se Post-Conviction Relief
Petition. Via Judgment Entry filed May 13, 2022, the trial court denied Appellant’s petition
for post-conviction relief.
{¶7} It is from the May 13, 2022 Judgment Entry Appellant appeals, raising as
his sole assignment of error:
ABUSE OF DISCRETION
I
{¶8} Herein, Appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion “by neglecting
to appropriately consider the Post-Conviction Relief Petition, that was filed, through the
Constitutional Violations of Plain, Prejudicial, Structural and/or Reversible Error.” Brief of
Appellant at 5. Appellant further contends, “Any/All of these Specific, Constitutional
Errors supercede [sic] Harmless Error Analysis, cannot be Time-Barred, nor can res
judicata be claimed . . . nor should it be claimed, due to the Constitutional Deprivation
that Appellant had endured.” Id. Appellant explains “the Trial Court completely neglected
to file Any Findings of Fact and/or Conclusions of Law, as to the Denial of his Post-
Conviction Relief Petition.” Id.{¶9} Petitions for post-conviction relief are governed by R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a),
which provides:
Any person in any of the following categories may file a petition in
the court that imposed sentence, stating the grounds for relief relied upon,
and asking the court to vacate or set aside the judgment or sentence or to
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0032 5
grant other appropriate relief: (i) Any person who has been convicted of a
criminal offense * * * and who claims that there was such a denial or
infringement of the person's rights as to render the judgment void or
voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States
* * *.
{¶10} “Pursuant to R.C. 2953.21, when a trial court denies a petition for post-
conviction relief without a hearing, the trial court shall make and file findings of fact and
conclusions of law.” State v. Reese, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2017-0017, 2017-Ohio-
4263, ¶ 11. However, a trial court “need not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law
when it dismisses an untimely [post-conviction-relief] petition.” State ex rel. Kimbrough v.
Greene, 98 Ohio St.3d 116, 2002–Ohio–7042, 781 N.E.2d 155. “If a petition for post-
conviction relief is untimely, the trial court [has] no clear duty to issue findings of fact or
conclusions of law.” Reese, supra at ¶ 12, citing Dillon v. Cottrill, 5th Dist. Muskingum
No. CT2014–0053, 2015–Ohio–1785.
{¶11} R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) provides a petition for postconviction relief “shall be filed
no later than three hundred sixty-five days after the date on which the trial transcript is
filed in the court of appeals in the direct appeal of the judgment of conviction” which is
challenged by the petition.
{¶12} Here, Appellant pursued his direct appeal in March, 2018. His petition was
filed more than four years later. A trial court has no jurisdiction to hear an untimely petition
for post-conviction relief unless the movant meets the requirements set forth in R.C. §
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0032 6
2953.23(A). State v. Walker, 5th Dist. No. 12-CAA-020010, 2012-Ohio-3095, citing State
v. Demastry, 5th Dist. No. 05CA-14, 2005-Ohio-4962 ¶ 15.
{¶13} In order for a court to recognize an untimely post-conviction petition, both
of the following requirements must apply:
(a) Either the petitioner shows that the petitioner was unavoidably
prevented from discovery of the facts upon which the petitioner must rely to
present the claim for relief, or, subsequent to the period prescribed in
division (A)(2) of section 2953.21 of the Revised Code or to the filing of an
earlier petition, the United States Supreme Court recognized a new federal
or state right that applies retroactively to persons in the petitioner's situation,
and the petition asserts a claim based on that right.
(b) The petitioner shows by clear and convincing evidence that, but
for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found
the petitioner guilty of the offense of which the petitioner was convicted or,
if the claim challenges a sentence of death that, but for constitutional error
at the sentencing hearing, no reasonable factfinder would have found the
petitioner eligible for the death sentence.
R.C. 2953.23(A)(1).
{¶14} We find Appellant failed to satisfy the statutory exceptions to the untimely
filing of a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to R.C. 2953.23(A)(1). A petitioner's
failure to satisfy R.C. 2953.23(A) deprives a trial court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0032 7
merits of an untimely or successive postconviction petition. See, State v. Apanovitch,
155 Ohio St.3d 358, 2018-Ohio-4744, 121 N.E.3d 351, ¶ 36. Because Appellant’s petition
was untimely, we find the trial court was not required make any findings of fact and
conclusions of law. We further find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief.
{¶15} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶16} The judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN