State v. Hudson, 2017 Ohio 2608

Defendant Rayshaun Hudson entered no-contest pleas in three Montgomery County cases on January 16, 2009 and was sentenced March 18, 2009 to an aggregate 94 years (plus 42 years in a Clark County case).
Hudson appealed and lost a direct appeal challenging excessive sentencing and failure-to-merge issues; later pro se post‑sentence motions to withdraw pleas in 2011 and 2013 were denied and not appealed.
In 2014 Hudson moved to be resentenced because original entries failed to properly notify him of post‑release control; the trial court held a February 5, 2016 resentencing hearing under R.C. 2929.191(C) to correct post‑release control language.
At the outset of the 2016 resentencing, appointed counsel made an oral motion to withdraw Hudson’s no-contest pleas, asserting trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by misadvising about post‑release control; the trial court immediately overruled the oral motion and proceeded to enter nunc pro tunc corrections.
Hudson appealed the resentencing; he assigns error to the trial court’s overruling of the oral plea‑withdrawal motion without a hearing and contends counsel was ineffective for not filing a written motion. The appellate court affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by overruling Hudson’s oral motion to withdraw his no‑contest pleas without a hearing	State: the appeal is from the resentencing entries only; the trial court properly treated the proceeding as limited to post‑release control and had no obligation to hold a hearing on a barred, post‑sentence motion	Hudson: the oral motion was a presentence motion requiring a hearing and the court should have permitted withdrawal of his pleas	Court: no jurisdiction to review the overruling (notice of appeal designated only resentencing); merits — motion was a post‑sentence plea‑withdrawal barred by res judicata, so no hearing required
Whether Hudson received ineffective assistance because counsel did not file a written motion to withdraw the plea	State: Crim.R.32.1 does not require written motion; even if written it would be barred by res judicata, so no prejudice	Hudson: counsel was ineffective for failing to file a written motion to support the oral plea‑withdrawal request	Court: no deficient performance — no rule required writing; claim barred by res judicata, so no prejudice; ineffective‑assistance claim fails

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing the two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (adopting Ohio application of Strickland)
State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 2008) (prejudice standard discussion in sentencing context)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (effect of void post‑release control and res judicata on other aspects of conviction)