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, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

May 10, 2018

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
ROSARIO D. ROBINSON DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

          Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-16-611347-B

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Thomas A. Rein

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Brandon Piteo Assistant Prosecuting Attorney

          BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., E.T. Gallagher, P.J., and Jones, J.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE.

         {¶1} Rosario Robinson appeals his convictions for six counts of felonious assault, with associated three-year firearm specifications, and one count of having a weapon while under disability. We affirm.

         {¶2} Robinson was charged with aggravated burglary and several charges of felonious assault, each for a separate victim, along with associated firearm specifications and having a weapon while under disability. Although the indictment originally identified one victim, the trial court permitted the state to amend the indictment to reflect the names of six victims in the case. The codefendant, Robert Littlejohn, was charged under the multicount indictment under a complicity theory. The case proceeded to a bench trial in which Robinson was found guilty of the aggravated burglary, felonious assaults, and all firearm specifications. The trial court imposed a 13-year aggregate sentence on the six felonious assaults and one count of having a weapon while under disability.[1] Robinson's aggravated burglary count merged with the felonious assault counts for the purposes of sentencing.

         {¶3} Littlejohn drove Robinson and another unidentified male, known only as "Brick, " to a residence in Bedford, Ohio. The victims' testimony reflected that three men entered the residence together and went into a bedroom where the victims were sitting. Littlejohn took money out of his pocket to pay for marijuana, and then Robinson fired multiple shots into the bedroom at the individual victims. Several of the victims testified that the third person to enter the room had dreadlocks. They identified the third person as Robinson and indicated he had a gun and shot multiple bullets into the room. There was some testimony to suggest that Brick also may have had a gun.

         {¶4} One of the victims who had been shot had a gun and returned fire. Littlejohn and Robinson were both wounded in the exchange. Littlejohn, Robinson, and Brick then left the house together, with Brick driving the two others to the hospital. Littlejohn directed Brick to take the vehicle to his place of work.

         {¶5} At trial, Littlejohn testified that he was taking the other two men to a house they directed him to because they wanted to buy drugs, that they wanted to borrow $40 from him to buy marijuana, and that he did not see a gun on anyone with him. Littlejohn claimed that there was a fourth person who came to the door behind Robinson and pointed a gun at Robinson's face and shot Robinson. Littlejohn also stated multiple shots were fired and that he was shot on his way out of the room. Littlejohn maintained that he and Robinson were victims.

         {¶6} Robinson also testified that a fourth person came to the door and pointed a gun at his face. He claimed that he grabbed the man's arm and was shot in the face. Robinson denied having a gun on his person and claimed that he was just there to buy marijuana.

         {¶7} In the first assignment of error, Robinson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. According to Robinson, there is "a question whether [Robinson] had a firearm" and there "is also not the requisite evidence that [Robinson] knew anything ahead of time about any robbery."

         {¶8} A claim of insufficient evidence raises the question whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict as a matter of law. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541. In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, "[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.

         {¶9} Robinson was convicted of felonious assault under R.C. 2903.11(A)(1)-(2) for his part in firing a weapon at several victims, one of whom was shot in the leg. R.C. 2903.11(A) provides that "no person shall knowingly * * * cause serious physical harm to another * * * or cause or attempt to cause ...


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.