Title: State ex rel. Robinson v. Huron County Court of Common Pleas

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Robinson v. Huron Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-
1553.] 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2015-OHIO-1553 
THE STATE EX REL. ROBINSON, APPELLANT, v. HURON COUNTY COURT OF 
COMMON PLEAS, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Robinson v. Huron Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1553.] 
Criminal procedure—Mandamus for resentencing barred by res judicata. 
(No. 2014-1195—Submitted February 3, 2015—Decided April 28, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Huron County, No. H-14-009. 
_____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals 
dismissing a petition for a writ of mandamus.  The court of appeals correctly 
dismissed the petition of appellant, Lawrence D. Robinson, for a writ of 
mandamus because the issue he asserts is res judicata. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Facts and procedural history 
{¶ 2} In 1975, Robinson was retried and convicted of premeditated murder 
and felony murder for an incident that occurred in 1973 and was sentenced to two 
terms of life imprisonment, to be served consecutively. 
{¶ 3} Robinson appealed his original conviction and sentence, but they 
were affirmed.  State v. Robinson, 6th Dist. Huron No. H-75-009, 1976 WL 
188473 (Dec. 3, 1976).  He has filed various postconviction motions and 
petitions.  E.g., State v. Robinson, 6th Dist. Huron No. H-84-24, 1984 WL 3732 
(Dec. 28, 1984) (appeal from motion for postconviction relief); State v. Robinson, 
6th Dist. Huron No. H-12-025, 2013-Ohio-2941, appeal not accepted, 137 Ohio 
St.3d 1411, 2013-Ohio-5096, 998 N.E.2d 511 (appeal from motion for 
resentencing). 
{¶ 4} In May 2014, Robinson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in 
the Sixth District Court of Appeals.  Respondent, Huron County Court of 
Common Pleas, moved for dismissal of the petition, and the motion was granted.  
Robinson appealed to this court. 
Analysis 
{¶ 5} The court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition for mandamus 
because the claim is res judicata.  The doctrine of res judicata involves both claim 
preclusion (historically called estoppel by judgment in Ohio) and issue preclusion 
(traditionally known as collateral estoppel).  Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio 
St.3d 379, 381-382, 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995), citing Whitehead v. Gen. Tel. Co., 20 
Ohio St.2d 108, 254 N.E.2d 10 (1969); Krahn v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St.3d 103, 107, 
538 N.E.2d 1058 (1989).  With regard to claim preclusion, a final judgment or 
decree, rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction, is a complete 
bar to any subsequent action on the same claim between the same parties or those 
in privity with them.  Grava at 381, citing Norwood v. McDonald, 142 Ohio St. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
299, 52 N.E.2d 67 (1943), paragraph one of the syllabus, and Whitehead, 
paragraph one of the syllabus. 
{¶ 6} Robinson filed a similar challenge in a previous case, State v. 
Robinson, 6th Dist. Huron No. H-12-025, 2013-Ohio-2941, appeal not accepted, 
137 Ohio St.3d 1411, 2013-Ohio-5096, 998 N.E.2d 511.  In that case, he argued 
that his sentence for multiple convictions for allied offenses was unconstitutional.  
Id., ¶ 4. He relied on State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942 
N.E.2d 1061, which modified the allied-offenses analysis under R.C. 2941.25.  
The court of appeals affirmed the denial of Robinson’s motion for resentencing, 
in part because it concluded that the standard in Johnson does not apply 
retroactively.  2013-Ohio-2941, ¶ 10. 
{¶ 7} In this case, in contrast, Robinson does not rely on Johnson, but on 
the statute itself and a prestatute case, State v. Botta, 27 Ohio St.2d 196, 271 
N.E.2d 776 (1971).  Botta held that when “in substance and effect but one offense 
has been committed, a verdict of guilty by the jury under more than one count 
does not require a retrial but only requires that the court not impose more than one 
sentence.”  Id. at 203.  Robinson claims that under Botta and the statute, effective 
in 1974, the courts should have conducted a merger analysis and sentenced him 
for only one crime. 
{¶ 8} However, under the doctrine of res judicata, an existing final 
judgment or decree binding the parties is conclusive as to all claims that were or 
could have been litigated in a first lawsuit.  Grava, 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 381-382, 
653 N.E.2d 226.  Res judicata requires a plaintiff to present every ground for 
relief in the first action or be forever barred from asserting it.  Id. 
{¶ 9} Robinson asserts that he has brought up the lack of a merger 
analysis, including Johnson, in all his actions from his first appeal.  He could have 
also argued, in all his previous appeals and motions, that the statute itself and 
Botta required the courts to conduct a merger analysis.  Therefore, the final 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
judgments in Robinson’s previous motions and appeals are conclusive as to all 
claims regarding the statute and Botta because they could have been litigated in 
the earlier proceedings.  His claims in this case are res judicata. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_____________________ 
 
Lawrence Robinson, pro se. 
 
Russell V. Leffler, Huron County Prosecuting Attorney, and Patrick M. 
Hakos Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_____________________