Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Robinson

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Hancock

May 8, 2017

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
MONTRE O. ROBINSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

         Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 2013-CR-249

          Allen M. Vender for Appellant

          Alex K. Treece for Appellee

          OPINION

          PRESTON, P.J.

         {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Montre O. Robinson ("Robinson"), appeals the December 17, 2014 judgment entry of sentence of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

         {¶2} This case stems from the November 8, 2013 shooting death of Joe Gutierrez ("Gutierrez") in which it was alleged that Robinson aided and abetted Ralph G. Harris, III ("Harris") in discharging a firearm from a vehicle causing Gutierrez's death. (Doc. No. 116). On November 25, 2013, the Hancock County Grand Jury indicted Robison on one count of murder in violation of R.C, 2903.02(A), an unclassified felony, with a specification under R.C. 2941.146 that Robinson purposely caused the death of another "by discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle" and one count of tampering with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), a third-degree felony. (Doc. No. 1). On December 2, 2013, Robinson appeared for arraignment and entered pleas of not guilty. (Doc. No. 11).

         {¶3} The case proceeded to a jury trial on October 14-17 and 20-22, 2014. (Doc. No. 110). On October 22, 2014, the jury found Robinson guilty as to the counts and specification in the indictment. (Doc. Nos. 101, 102, 110). The trial court filed its judgment entry of conviction on December 11, 2014. (Doc. No. 110). On December 11, 2014, the trial court sentenced Robinson to an indefinite term of life in prison with parole eligibility after serving 15 years on Count One, 5 years in prison on the specification, and 24 months in prison on Count Two, and it ordered that Robinson serve the terms consecutively. (Doc. No. 112); (Dec. 11, 2014 Tr. at 24-25). The trial court filed its judgment entry of sentence on December 17, 2014. (Doc. No. 112).

         {¶4} On May 19, 2016, Robinson filed his notice of appeal.[1] (Doc. No. 136). He raises two assignments of error for our review.

         Assignment of Error No. I

The trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences on Robinson because the record did not contain evidence to support the trial court's findings. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a); R.C. 29239.14(C)(4); State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16, of the Ohio Constitution; December 11, 2014, Sentencing Hearing, Tr. 24-26; December 11, 2014 Judgement Entry.

         {¶5} In his first assignment of error, Robinson argues the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences.

         {¶6} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will reverse a sentence "only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Clear and convincing evidence is that "'which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.'" Id. at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.

         {¶7} "Except as provided in * * * division (C) of section 2929.14, prison term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment shall be served concurrently with any other prison term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court of this state, another state, or the United States." R.C. 2929.41(A). R.C. 2929.14(C) provides:

(4) * * * [T]he court may require the offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.