State v. Robinson
| Docket Number | 110358 |
| Decision Date | 13 January 2022 |
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 82 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERMAINE D. ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-17-613746-A
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, Anthony T. Miranda and Gregory Ochocki, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Michael T. Conway, for appellant
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Jermaine Robinson, a noncitizen and a native of Jamaica, pleaded guilty to several offenses under a plea bargain agreement and was sentenced to a six-month term of community-control sanctions. After he served the six-month term of community-control sanctions, he was deported to Jamaica. Two and one-half years after he was sentenced, he filed a motion to vacate his guilty plea. He alleged his trial counsel provided misleading advice about the immigration consequences of his guilty plea and supported his allegation with his own affidavit. The trial court denied the motion. Robinson filed a motion for factual findings and conclusions of law, which the trial court denied. Robinson appealed pro se from the trial court's denial of that motion but failed to timely appeal the denial of his motion to vacate his guilty plea. Even if the appeal of the motion to vacate his guilty plea were timely, Robinson failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's allegedly deficient advice, he would have insisted on going to trial. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
{¶ 2} On April 5, 2017, Robinson, age 20 at the time, was indicted for felonious assault, a second-degree felony (Count 1); carrying a concealed weapon, a fourth-degree felony (Count 2); improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle, a fourth-degree felony (Count 3); drug trafficking, a fourth-degree felony (Count 4); drug possession, a fourth-degree felony (Count 5); and possessing criminal tools, a fifth-degree felony (Count 6). The offenses appear to be related to a drug transaction that turned violent.
{¶ 3} On February 7, 2018, under a plea agreement, Robinson pleaded guilty to carrying a concealed weapon (Count 2) and drug possession (Count 5). He also pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of aggravated menacing, a first-degree misdemeanor, in Count 1. The remaining counts were nolled. At the plea hearing, the trial court explained to Robinson the maximum prison term for each of his offenses and the constitutional rights he would give up by pleading guilty. Because he was not a citizen, the court advised him his plea may result in deportation. The transcript reflects the following:
THE COURT: You are hereby advised that a conviction of which you're pleading to may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission into the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States. Do you understand that?[1] THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
(Tr. 6.)
{¶ 4} In addition, Robinson answered "no" when asked if there were promises made to him to induce his plea.
{¶ 5} On March 26, 2018, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. The immigration consequences of Robinson's guilty plea appeared to be a main concern for the parties. The prosecutor stated that there was a note in the case file that the defendant may be facing deportation as a result of this matter, and Robinson's counsel stated the following:
We would ask the court - you were kind enough to [have] given [us] an extension to begin to make arrangements if immigration should detain him. So at this point, we would ask the court, based on his lack of prior record and the offenses he pled guilty to, if you [would] consider community control sanctions and, again, I think his biggest sanction is going to be with immigration. Thank you.
(Tr. 5.)
{¶ 6} Robinson was then sentenced to six months of community-control sanctions. He did not appeal from his conviction or sentence. After he completed the six-month term of community-control sanctions, he was deported to Jamaica on October 25, 2018.
{¶ 7} Two and one-half years after his sentencing, on December 31, 2020, Robinson, pro se, filed a "Motion to Vacate Plea" pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1. He claimed his guilty plea was a result of his counsel's misleading advice. He alleged counsel advised him that the colloquy regarding deportation was an "empty formality" and "should not be taken literally." Robinson claimed he would not have pleaded guilty but for counsel's misrepresentation but attached only his own affidavit to support the claim.
{¶ 8} The state opposed Robinson's Crim.R. 32.1 motion, arguing Robinson pleaded guilty to avoid a prison term and he failed to demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty but for counsel's allegedly deficient performance. The state also argued that the motion, filed more than two years after his sentencing, was unjustifiably delayed.
{¶ 9} On February 2, 2021, the trial court denied the motion. On February 5, 2021, Robinson filed a "Motion for Factual Findings and Conclusions of Law." He claimed that the trial court's judgment without factual and legal findings is not a final order. On February 17, 2021, the trial court denied that motion. On March 16, 2021, more than 30 days after the trial court denied his motion to vacate the guilty plea, Robinson filed an appeal pro se. He stated in the docketing statement that he was appealing both the judgment entry denying his "Motion for Factual Findings and Conclusions of Law" and the judgment entry denying his motion to vacate the guilty plea - although he only attached the former entry to the notice of appeal.
{¶ 10} Robinson raises the following two assignments of error on appeal:
{¶ 11} R.C. 2953.21(D) requires the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law before dismissing a postconviction petition. In contrast, Crim.R. 32.1 does not require a trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when deciding a postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea. See State ex rel Chavis v. Griffin 91 Ohio St.3d 50, 51, 741 N.E.2d 130 (2001); State v. Hobbs, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109706, 2021-Ohio-852, ¶ 15. The trial court did not err in denying Robinson's motion requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law. The first assignment is without merit.
{¶ 12} In the second assignment of error, Robinson challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate his plea. We note that the trial court denied the motion on February 2, 2021. That judgment is final and must be appealed within 30 days pursuant to App.R 4. Robinson did not file an appeal until March 16, 2021, past the 30-day appeal time. There is no authority allowing the 30-day appeal time from a judgment denying a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to be tolled by a motion for factual findings and conclusion of law, and Robinson failed to request a delayed appeal of the trial court's judgment pursuant to App.R. 5(A).
{¶ 13} Even if the appeal had been filed timely, as we explain in the following, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Crim.R. 32.1 Motion
{¶ 14} Crim.R. 32.1 provides that a trial court may grant a defendant's postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea only to correct a manifest injustice. "A defendant who seeks to withdraw a plea of guilty after the imposition of sentence has the burden of establishing the existence of manifest injustice." State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph one of the syllabus, citing Crim.R. 32.1. A Crim.R. 32.1 motion "is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the good faith, credibility and weight of the movant's assertions in support of the motion are matters to be resolved by that court." Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶ 15} Here, the transcript reflects that the trial court's advisement regarding the immigration consequences of his plea tracked the language provided in R.C. 2943.031. In his motion to vacate the plea, Robinson did not claim that the trial court's advisement was deficient, but rather alleged that his trial counsel provided misleading information about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, specifically, that the trial court's advisement that he may be subject to deportation as a result of a guilty plea was a "formality" only.
{¶ 16} Robinson claims he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea because his counsel provided ineffective assistance. To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that his trial counsel's performance was deficient in some aspect of his representation and that deficiency prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In the context of a guilty plea, the defendant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that, but for c...
To continue reading
Request your trial