State v. Robbins
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Timothy Robbins entered a conditional plea of guilty to and was convicted of operating under the influence (OUI), with two prior convictions, and operating after suspension. Robbins appealed, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike two prior uncounseled misdemeanor OUI convictions, which reflected that he appeared pro se but were silent as to the procedures taken to ensure that his constitutional right to counsel was satisfied. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that Robbins could not prevail on the record because, as no evidence was presented to the contrary, the Court presumed the regularity that attaches to the final judgment of a conviction.
Download PDF
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2012 ME 19 Docket: Oxf-11-354 Argued: January 11, 2012 Decided: February 28, 2012 Panel: Reporter of Decisions SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ. STATE OF MAINE v. TIMOTHY SCOTT ROBBINS SAUFLEY, C.J. [¶1] Timothy Scott Robbins appeals from a judgment of conviction of operating under the influence, with two prior convictions in a ten-year period (Class C), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(B)(2) (2011), and operating after suspension (Class E), 29-A M.R.S. § 2412-A(1-A)(D) (2011), entered in Superior Court (Oxford County, Clifford, J.) upon a conditional plea of guilty pursuant to M.R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). Robbins contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike two prior uncounseled misdemeanor OUI convictions. His argument is based on the docket sheets from his prior convictions, which reflect that he appeared pro se but are silent as to the procedures taken to ensure that his constitutional right to counsel was satisfied. 2 [¶2] An appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record upon which the reviewing court can consider the arguments on appeal. State v. Milliken, 2010 ME 1, ¶ 12, 985 A.2d 1152 (quotation marks omitted). The record provided to us on appeal includes the docket entries from Robbins s prior convictions but does not include the documents or transcripts related to those proceedings. The court did not hold a hearing on Robbins s motion to strike the prior convictions. Thus, neither we nor the trial court have been presented with any evidence that would cause us to question the constitutional validity of Robbins s prior convictions. See United States v. Gray, 177 F.3d 86, 88-91 (1st Cir. 1999). [¶3] The presumption of regularity in court proceedings is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence . . . [and] . . . attaches to final judgments, even when the question is waiver of constitutional rights. Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 29 (1992); see also Thursby v. State, 223 A.2d 61, 69 (Me. 1966) (stating that we could assume from the presumption of regularity which attaches to final judgments of convictions, that if the trial court had entertained any doubt as to the [defendant s] . . . sanity or competence . . . it would have used its inherent power to probe into his mental condition for purposes of triability (citation omitted)). [¶4] Assuming, without deciding, that Robbins s motion to strike is the appropriate procedural vehicle to challenge his prior convictions in this context, 3 Robbins cannot prevail on this record. With no evidence presented to the contrary, we will presume the regularity that attaches to the final judgment of a conviction, State v. Lewis, 584 A.2d 622, 625 (Me. 1990), and affirm the judgment of conviction currently on appeal. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. On the briefs: Sarah L. Glynn, Esq., Oxford Hills Law, South Paris, for appellant Timothy Scott Robbins Norman R. Croteau, District Attorney, and Joseph M. O Connor, Asst. Dist. Atty., Office of the District Attorney, South Paris, for appellee State of Maine At oral argument: Sarah L. Glynn, Esq., for appellant Timothy Scott Robbins Joseph M. O Connor, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee State of Maine Oxford County Superior Court docket number CR-2010-61 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
