Circuit Court affirms conviction over Sumpter ordinance

Ronald Barrington Robinson of Sumpter Township was found guilty by a 34th District Court jury on Oct. 12, 2018 of violating a Sumpter Township ordinance.
He was ticketed for parking his recreational vehicle on his property at 27325 Martinsville Rd.
On July 6, 2020, Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Noah P. Hood signed a 30-page opinion and an order affirming Robinson’s conviction.
Robinson had appealed his conviction to circuit court a few weeks after his jury verdict.
Judge Hood said the district judge [David Parrott] did not err in excluding nullification arguments and arguments about possible political motivations at trial.
“Allowing arguments and evidence about possible political motivations would have reentered the entire case on facts and issues that had nothing to do with the parking or storage of a recreational vehicle on the Martinsville Road Property,” Judge Hood said.
Judge Hood said the jury found Robinson stored or parked his recreational vehicle at 27325 Martinsville Rd., Sumpter Township; that the property on which the recreational vehicle was parked or stored was a vacant parcel of property within the Township of Sumpter; and the parking or storage of his recreational vehicle was not approved by the zoning administrator.
It took 23 minutes for the jury to make its decision. Robinson filed his claim of appeal on Oct. 31, 2018.
He raised four issues: whether there was sufficient evidence at trial, whether the Sumpter Township ordinance 10.8 is void for vagueness, whether the ordinance violates Robinson’s due process rights, and whether district court denied his right to a defense by excluding evidence and arguments related to potential political motivations for the prosecution.
At a hearing on a motion before the trial at district court, Robinson referenced his 2016 campaign for township trustee and his 2018 campaign for treasurer.
“The defense obliquely referenced ‘political considerations’ involved with the case, but indicated that those were not part of the motion to dismiss,” Judge Hood wrote. The defense’s motion to dismiss was denied by Judge Parrott.
Judge Hood wrote, “Robinson did not follow the procedure for administrative review and remedies as outlined in the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. Rather, his case is before the Court on a direct appeal following Robinson’s conviction for noncompliance with Sumpter Township Ordinance 10.8(a).
“Although Robinson met with the Township Planner, Chris Adkin, he did not request a variance, he did not appeal a decision by the Township to the board of zoning appeals, and he did not appeal a decision from the board of zoning appeals to this court.
“Because he has not exhausted his administrative remedies, any as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of Section 10.8(a) is premature.
“It is unnecessary for the Court to address the merits of an as-applied challenge because it is not ripe for review,” Judge Hood wrote.