State v. Hudson, 2019-0646
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | Kennedy, J. |
| Citation | 2020 Ohio 3849,161 N.E.3d 608,161 Ohio St.3d 166 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. HUDSON, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 2019-0646,2019-0646 |
| Decision Date | 30 July 2020 |
161 Ohio St.3d 166
161 N.E.3d 608
2020 Ohio 3849
The STATE of Ohio, Appellee,
v.
HUDSON, Appellant.
No. 2019-0646
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted April 28, 2020
Decided July 30, 2020.
Ron O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Seth L. Gilbert, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Stephen P. Hardwick, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, Benjamin M. Flowers, State Solicitor, and Samuel C. Peterson and Zachery P. Keller, Deputy Solicitors, for amicus curiae, Attorney General Dave Yost.
Kennedy, J.
{¶ 1} In this discretionary appeal from the Tenth District Court of Appeals, we are asked to consider whether a trial court may correct the failure to include notice of the consequences of violating postrelease control in the sentencing entry after the offender has served the prison term imposed in the sentence. In State v. Grimes , we held that a trial court does not properly impose postrelease control if the sentencing entry does not notify the offender
that any violation of the conditions of postrelease control will subject the offender to the consequences for a violation provided in R.C. 2967.28. 151 Ohio St.3d 19, 2017-Ohio-2927, 85 N.E.3d 700, ¶ 1. Relying on Grimes , appellant, Michael D. Hudson, maintains that his sentencing entry lacks that notice, that the sentence cannot be corrected to add it now that he has fully served the prison term to which postrelease control attached, and that he therefore cannot be subjected to postrelease control.
{¶ 2} Subsequent to briefing and oral argument in this case, we decided State v. Harper and overruled our prior caselaw holding that a trial court's failure to properly impose postrelease control renders that part of the sentence void. 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, 159 N.E.3d 248, ¶ 5, 40. We therefore held that
the failure to include notice of the consequences of violating postrelease control as required by Grimes renders the sentence voidable, not void, and subject to the doctrine of res judicata. Id. at ¶ 41.
{¶ 3} In this case, as in Harper , the sentencing entry did not include notice of the consequences of violating postrelease control, but that failure does not render any part of the sentence void.
{¶ 4} We therefore reverse the court of appeals' judgment to the extent that it remanded this case to the trial court for further proceedings to correct the entry imposing postrelease control.
History of the Underlying Criminal Convictions
{¶ 5} In May 2004, the Franklin County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Hudson with multiple counts of aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, and having a weapon while under a disability and single counts of aggravated robbery, felonious assault, kidnapping, tampering with evidence, and intimidation in connection with the killing of Garfield Commissiong. In March 2006, a jury found Hudson guilty of kidnapping and an amended count of burglary, which carried a firearm specification. The jury acquitted him of aggravated murder, murder as a lesser included offense of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, tampering with evidence, and intimidation, and the remaining counts were dismissed.
{¶ 6} The trial court sentenced Hudson to ten years in prison for kidnapping, eight years for burglary, and one year for the firearm specification, along with a mandatory five-year term of postrelease control, all to be served consecutively. Although it notified him of the potential consequences of violating postrelease control at the sentencing hearing and in a separate document, the trial court did not include that notice in the sentencing entry.
{¶ 7} The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed Hudson's convictions and sentence on direct appeal. 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-335, 2007-Ohio-3227, 2007 WL 1821702. We declined review. 115 Ohio St.3d 1444, 2007-Ohio-5567, 875 N.E.2d 104.
Procedural Posture of this Case
{¶ 8} In June 2018, more than a decade after the court of appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence, Hudson filed a "motion to vacate and release from post-release control," asserting that the trial court had failed to properly impose postrelease control and that that part of his sentence was void. The trial court denied the motion.
{¶ 9} On appeal, the Tenth District affirmed in part and reversed in part. Relying on Grimes and its decision in
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Henderson, 2019-0182
...acquired personal jurisdiction over Henderson. See Article IV, Section 4(B), Ohio Constitution ; R.C. 2931.03 ; State v. Hudson , 161 Ohio St. 3d 166, 2020-Ohio-3849, 161 N.E.3d 608, ¶ 15 ; Harper at ¶ 23. Accordingly, any error in sentencing Henderson—including the error in failing to impo......
-
State v. Bates, 2020-0255
...the application of our recent decisions in State v. Harper , 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, 159 N.E.3d 248, and State v. Hudson , 161 Ohio St.3d 166, 2020-Ohio-3849, 161 N.E.3d 608. In 2008, the trial court failed to include in appellant Robert Bates's sentencing entry a statement that......
-
State v. Bates, 2020-0255
...the application of our recent decisions in State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, 159 N.E.3d 248, and State v. Hudson, 161 Ohio St.3d 166, 2020-Ohio-3849, 161 N.E.3d 608. In 2008, the trial court failed to include in appellant Robert Bates's sentencing entry a statement that p......
-
State v. Levy, 111779
...jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case or personal jurisdiction over the accused. Ogle at ¶ 12-14; see also State v. Hudson, 161 Ohio St.3d 166, 2020-Ohio-3849, 161 N.E.3d 608, ¶ 17 (stating the same). And when a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the issue of jurisdiction c......