Robinson v. Sheldon
| Decision Date | 20 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | 3:14CV0201 |
| Parties | JOHN MICHAEL ROBINSON, Petitioner v. ED SHELDON, Warden, Respondent |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
(Magistrate Judge Kenneth S. McHargh)
The petitioner John Michael Robinson ("Robinson") has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus through counsel, arising out of his 2001 convictions, based on a negotiated guilty plea, for two counts of aggravated murder, one count of attempted aggravated murder, and other charges, in the Sandusky County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas.
In his petition, Robinson raises a single ground for relief: "Conviction obtained by a plea of guilty which was unlawfully induced due to it needlessly encouraged the defendant to enter a plea of guilty in order to escape the risk of death." (Doc. 1, § 12.)
The respondent has filed a Return of Writ, arguing that his petition is untimely, or the claim was procedurally defaulted. (Doc. 13, at 6, 12-13.) Robinson has filed an Traverse (doc. 20), and the respondent filed a reply (doc. 21).
Robinson entered a negotiated plea of guilty to two counts of aggravated murder, with firearm specifications, and one count of attempted aggravated murder, with a specification, and was subsequently sentenced to three years plus incarceration for life without the possibility of parole for each count of aggravated murder, and three years plus ten years for the count of attempted aggravated murder, to be served consecutively. (Doc. 13, RX 3, RX 1, and RX 18, at 1-2.)
Robinson did not file a direct appeal. Almost nine years later, on Feb. 19, 2010, Robinson wrote a letter to the trial court, requesting a new trial "on the grounds that [he] was pushed into taking that plea deal." (Doc. 13, RX 4.) Robinson wrote that he "would be willing to take responsibility for [his] actions if found guilty." Id.
Robinson also stated that he "was very young in mind when this case took place." Id.
On June 11, 2010, Robinson pro se filed a Petition to Vacate or Set Aside Sentence, pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.21. (Doc. 13, RX 5.) In his petition, Robinson stated two claims:
(Doc. 13, RX 5, at 2-3.) The facts supporting both claims were stated as "Assailant is now known in the 2 murders." (Doc. 13, RX 5, at 2.)
Robinson's motion, and the state's opposition, refer to an "affidavit" in support1. The state quotes a statement2 of Donald A. Brown, to wit, "On two occasions I went to commit a robbery and in each occasion a person ended up being killed." (Doc. 13, RX 6, at 2.)
The state provided an affidavit from an investigating officer of the Ottawa County Sheriff's office, which stated that Robinson was in possession of a pistol and bullets at the time of his arrest in Texas, and that ballistic analysis indicated that bullets found at each crime scene were fired from the gun found in his possession. In addition, DNA samples from a cigarette and beer bottle at one crime scene matched a DNA standard taken from Robinson. (Doc. 13, RX 7, Levorchick aff., at 1-2.)
The Sheriff's officer also averred that, at his sentencing hearing3, Robinson stated, (Doc. 13, RX 7, Levorchick aff., at 2.) Both the Sheriff's officer and a correctional officer who were transporting Robinson to LCI averred that he admitted his guilt to them. (Doc. 13, RX 7, Levorchick aff., and Zelms aff.)
The trial court denied the petition on August 25, 2010, granting the state's motion for summary judgment. The court gave no credence to Brown's statement, dismissing it as vague, while crediting the averments by the two Sheriff's officers that Robinson had confessed involvement in the crimes in their presence. The court also noted that Robinson had been represented by competent counsel, that investigators were appointed by the court, and that one year passed between the crime and the change of plea. The court also noted that Robinson had signed a stipulation of facts, a written plea of guilty containing admissions, and the negotiated plea agreement, on May 30, 2001. (Doc. 13, RX 9.)
On July 19, 2010, while his post-conviction petition was pending, Robinson filed a motion pro se for a new trial. In that motion, Robinson argued that "newly discovered evidence that could not be brought forth at trial" supported his argumentfor a new trial. Robinson asserted that he now knew the person responsible [Brown] for the two murders in this case. (Doc. 13, RX 10.)
The motion included an undated statement from Brown, which reads, in part: "On two occasions I went to commit a robbery and in each occasion a person ended up being killed." This statement does not specifically assert that Brown killed the victims, and does not discuss Brown's buying a gun from Robinson. Brown did state, however, that he was willing to make a fuller statement. (Doc. 13, RX 10, at [6].)
On Aug. 12, 2010, while his post-conviction petition and motion for new trial were pending, Robinson filed a motion pro se to withdraw guilty plea. He asserts that he made a plea deal "out of an act of desperation in order to escape the risk of death." He refers the court to Brown's statement, and claims that Brown's statement proves Robinson is not guilty of the two aggravated murder charges. (Doc. 13, RX 11.)
Robinson filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing for his motions for a new trial and to withdraw guilty plea, on Feb. 28, 2011, and a second motion for an evidentiary hearing on Feb. 9, 2012. (Doc. 13, RX 12-13.)
The trial court ruled on Robinson's pending motions on Feb. 17, 2012, as follows:
On February 9, 2012, Defendant filed his pro se motion requesting an evidentiary hearing pending the possibility of filing a motion for a new trial. This motion is duplicative of motions filed 2/25/10, 6/11/10, 7/19/10, and 8/12/10. This motion being in the nature of a motionseeking post conviction relief, and the court having previously addressed the issue, said motion is denied.
(Doc. 13, RX 14.)
On July 20, 2012, Robinson filed a motion to modify his sentence, arguing that it exceeded the statutory maximum, and was based only on judicial factfinding. (Doc. 13, RX 15.) The court denied the motion on July 25, pointing out that Robinson's sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum, and was the result of a negotiated plea. (Doc. 13, RX 16.)
While the above motion was pending, Robinson filed a motion pro se for leave to file a delayed appeal on July 23, 2012. Robinson stated that he was not represented by counsel, and was unaware of the proper time limits. He also claimed: "Newly discovered evidence, person responsible has come forward." (Doc. 13, RX 17.)
The court of appeals denied Robinson's motion for leave on Sept. 21, 2012. The court noted that Robinson was advised of his limited right to appeal at the time of his May 31, 2001, sentencing. The court found that "defendant has not set forth sufficient reasons for his more than 11-year delay in filing a notice of appeal." (Doc. 13, RX 18, at 3.)
On Oct. 29, 2012, Robinson filed a notice of appeal, and a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, with the Supreme Court of Ohio. In his memorandum, Robinson asserted he could prove he is not guilty in the two murders, because the person responsible is willing to come forward and tell the truth. He claimed hisconviction "was obtained by a plea of guilty which was unlawfully induced due to it needlessly encouraged the defendant to enter a plea of guilty in order to escape the risk of death." (Doc. 13, RX 19, memorandum in support, at 1-2.)
According to Robinson, he sold his gun to Brown ["Donny"] on April 20, 2000, then several days later decided to buy it back, which he did in the late evening on April 24th. (Doc. 13, RX 19, at [77]-[81].) He admits shooting the surviving victim (Hovis) during the robbery in Fremont that evening, but claims he could not have committed the two murders which took place on April 21 and earlier on April 24, because the gun was not in his possession during that time period. (Doc. 13, RX 19, at [79].)
Attached to Robinson's memorandum was also a lengthy statement from Brown, reciting that he had bought the gun from Robinson on April 20, committed one murder in the course of a robbery the next day, and then committed the second murder in the course of a robbery while on his way to sell the gun back to Robinson. (Doc. 13, RX 19, at [85]-[86].) Brown claims that he did not come forward earlier because he had not realized that anyone had been charged with the crimes until he encountered Robinson in prison in 2010. (Doc. 13, RX 19, at [87].)
On Feb. 20, 2013, the state high court declined to accept jurisdiction of the appeal. (Doc. 13, RX 20; State v. Robinson, 134 Ohio St.3d 1467, 983 N.E.2d 368 (2013).)
This case is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which provides the standard of review that federal courts must apply when considering applications for a writ of habeas corpus. Under the AEDPA, federal courts have limited power to issue a writ of habeas corpus with respect to any claim which was adjudicated on the merits by a state court. The Supreme Court, in Williams v. Taylor, provided the following guidance:
Under § 2254(d)(1), the writ may issue only if one of the following two conditions is satisfied -- the state-court adjudication resulted in a decision that (1) "was contrary to ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," or...
To continue reading
Request your trial