Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A post-conviction court displayed no bias or prejudice and did not clearly err when it denied a man’s change of judge motion, the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed Wednesday.
According to court records, in 2016, the state charged Pink Robinson with three counts of Level 3 felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon.
A jury convicted Robinson of all three counts in 2018, and the Elkhart Superior Court sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of 48 years, with three years suspended.
The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed Robinson’s convictions and sentence on direct appeal.
Robinson filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief.
In October 2021, attorney Jimmy Gurulé filed an appearance on Robinson’s behalf.
Also, Robinson filed a motion for a change of judge pursuant to Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(b).
The post-conviction court denied Robinson’s change of judge motion, and Robinson’s interlocutory appeal concerns only the post-conviction court’s denial of that motion.
Robinson appealed and argued that the post-conviction court clearly erred when it denied his motion for a change of judge.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the post-conviction court’s denial of Robinson’s motion, finding the court did not clearly err.
Judge Rudolph Pyle wrote the opinion for the appellate court.
According to Pyle, in October 2021, Robinson, represented by Gurulé, filed a 29-page change of judge motion that alleged an epidemic of wrongful convictions and systemic police misconduct in Elkhart.
Robinson argued that the post-conviction court should grant his change of judge motion because the post-conviction court judge had been a deputy prosecutor in the Elkhart County Prosecutor’s Office from 1998 until 2002.
He further argued that the post-conviction court should grant his motion for a change of judge because the post-conviction court’s order in a prior unrelated case involving Andrew Royer had shown that the post-conviction court judge had “already prejudged allegations identical to Mr. Robinson’s to be ‘defamatory’ and false, based not on evidence, but the Court’s own extrajudicial prejudices and beliefs.”
Royer was released from the Kosciusko County Jail in 2020, roughly 15 years after his 2005 conviction in the murder of 92-year-old Helen Sailor, when Special Judge Joe V. Sutton granted Royer’s successive post-conviction relief petition.
Robinson also argued that because the post-conviction court had ultimately granted Royer’s motion for a change of judge, the post-conviction court should grant Robinson’s motion for a change of judge as well.
Pyle wrote that the appellate court found nothing egregious in the July 2018 order that the trial court judge, who is the post-conviction court judge in Robinson’s case, issued in the unrelated Royer case.
“Rather, the trial court simply concluded that Attorney (Elliot) Slosar’s press conference statements regarding systemic police misconduct in Elkhart, which he had made before the adjudication of Royer’s Trial Rule 60(B) motion, violated Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6(a). Further, and more importantly, the trial court’s July 2018 order does not mention Robinson or anything about Robinson’s case, which occurred more than ten years after Royer’s case,” Pyle wrote.
Pyle noted there is also no allegation that the post-conviction court judge actively served as a deputy prosecutor on Robinson’s case.
“Indeed, this would have been an impossibility because the post-conviction court judge left the prosecutor’s office in 2002, fourteen years before the State charged Robinson with three counts of Level 3 felony robbery with a deadly weapon and twenty one years before Robinson’s upcoming hearing on his post-conviction petition,” Pyle wrote.
The appellate court also rejected Robinson’s argument that the post-conviction court judge’s former marriage to an Elkhart police officer from 1992 to 2003 supported a rational inference of bias or prejudice against Robinson.
Pyle wrote that the marriage ended 13 years before the state charged Robinson with three counts of Level 3 felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon and 20 years before the officer’s potential testimony in Robinson’s post-conviction case.
“In sum, the recorded historical facts on which Robinson based his motion for a change of judge simply do not support a rational inference of bias or prejudice against Robinson as contemplated by Post-Conviction Rule 1 (4)(b). We further note that the post-conviction court has neither expressed an opinion on the merits of Robinson’s case nor attacked his character,” Pyle wrote.
Judges Terry Crone and Cale Bradford concurred.
The case is Pink Allen Robinson v. State of Indiana, 22A-PC-1102.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.