State v. Robinson

[Cite as State v. Robinson, 2018-Ohio-1797.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-170473
TRIAL NO. C-17CRB-22321
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
O P I N I O N.
vs. :
ROBERT ROBINSON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Appellant Discharged
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 9, 2018
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alex Scott Havlin,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Carrie Wood, Assistant
Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
D ETERS , Judge.
{¶1} Following a plea of no contest, defendant-appellant Robert Robinson
was convicted of one count of possessing drug-abuse instruments under R.C.
2925.12. We reverse his conviction and discharge him from further prosecution.
{¶2} In his sole assignment of error, Robinson contends that the trial court
erred when it failed to enter a not-guilty finding following his no-contest plea. He
argues that the state’s explanation of circumstances failed to establish all of the
elements of a violation of R.C. 2925.12. This assignment of error is well taken.
{¶3} A plea of no contest to a misdemeanor offense “shall constitute an
admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint and that the judge or
magistrate may make a finding of guilty or not guilty from the explanation of
circumstances of the offense.” R.C. 2937.07. To find the defendant guilty, the
explanation of circumstances must contain sufficient information to support all of
the essential elements of the offense. Cuyahoga Falls v. Bowers, 9 Ohio St. 3d 148,
150, 459 N.E.2d 532 (1984); State v. Valentine, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-070388,
2008-Ohio-1842, ¶ 5. When the explanation of circumstances fails to satisfy all of
the elements of an offense, the defendant has a substantive right to be discharged by
a finding of not guilty. Bowers at 150; Valentine at ¶ 5.
{¶4} Robinson pleaded no contest to a violation of R.C. 2925.12(A), which
provides:
No person shall knowingly make, obtain, possess, or use any
instrument, article, or thing the customary or primary purpose of
which is for the administration or use of a dangerous drug, other than
marihuana, when the instrument involved is a hypodermic or syringe,
whether or not of crude or extemporized manufacture or assembly,
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
and the instrument, article, or thing involved has been used by the
offender to unlawfully administer or use a dangerous drug, other than
marihuana, or to prepare a dangerous drug, other than marihuana, for
unlawful administration or use.
This statute applies only where the instrument involved is a hypodermic or syringe.
State v. Mateo, 57 Ohio St. 3d 50, 54, 565 N.E.2d 590 (1991); State v. Diorio, 7th
Dist. Mahoning No. 05 MA 230, 2007-Ohio-3401, ¶ 44; State v. Mason, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 60331, 1992 WL 110252, *4 (May 21, 1992).
{¶5} In its explanation of circumstances, the state expressed that Robinson
knowingly possessed “a silver pipe with Charboy and burn marks * * * which means
that it is used to smoke crack cocaine.” Since the state’s explanation of
circumstances did not show that Robinson possessed a hypodermic or syringe, it
failed to establish all of the elements of possessing drug-abuse instruments under
R.C. 2925.12.
{¶6} Consequently, the trial court erred in finding Robinson guilty of the
offense. We sustain his assignment of error, reverse his conviction, and discharge
him from further prosecution.
Judgment reversed and appellant discharged.
C UNNINGHAM , P.J., and M YERS , J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.
3