State v. Hudson
2017 Ohio 4280
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1987 Hudson and codefendants murdered a single victim during a plan to rob him; Hudson was later indicted for aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated kidnapping with firearm specifications.
- A jury convicted Hudson and initially recommended death; on direct appeal this court vacated one aggravated-murder count and the robbery conviction and remanded for resentencing.
- In 1994 the trial court resentenced Hudson to life without parole for 30 years (for the aggravated-murder conviction) plus consecutive three-year firearm specification and a consecutive 10–20 year kidnapping term with a three-year firearm specification; consecutive runs were ordered.
- Hudson appealed the consecutive-sentence issue in a prior appeal (Hudson II) and this court affirmed under the law then in effect.
- In 2016 Hudson filed a motion to correct sentence arguing his parole eligibility after 30 years was frustrated by the aggregate consecutive terms (effectively delaying parole eligibility to about 46 years); the trial court summarily denied the motion and Hudson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to make findings of fact/conclusions of law before denying a postconviction motion | The state argues courts need not make findings when a petition is untimely | Hudson argues the court must make findings before denying his motion | Court: No findings required because the motion was an untimely postconviction petition absent an exception |
| Whether Hudson's filing was timely under R.C. 2953.21 and exceptions in 2953.23 | State argues petition was untimely and Hudson did not meet statutory exceptions | Hudson argues his sentence is void and sought relief regardless of time bar | Court: Filing was ~22 years late and Hudson did not allege facts satisfying the statutory exceptions; petition untimely |
| Whether trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion on the merits | State contends consecutive terms complied with law at conviction time and no abuse occurred | Hudson contends consecutive terms contradict parole eligibility promised after 30 years | Court: No abuse of discretion; consecutive terms were permissible under controlling law |
| Legality of running multiple firearm specifications and effect on parole eligibility | State: Former R.C. 2929.71(B) required multiple 3-year firearm terms to run consecutively and prior to life/indefinite terms when felonies are separate acts | Hudson: Consecutive firearm terms and other consecutive sentences undermine his parole eligibility after 30 years | Court: Consistent with prior decision (Hudson II) and former statute, firearm specs and sentences were properly ordered consecutive, which may delay parole eligibility but is lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (postconviction petition definition and relief procedure)
- State ex rel. George v. Burnside, 118 Ohio St.3d 406 (trial court not required to make findings on untimely petition)
- State ex rel. Bunting v. Haas, 102 Ohio St.3d 161 (timeliness/finding requirements for postconviction relief)
- State ex rel. Ashipa v. Kubicki, 114 Ohio St.3d 459 (same)
- State v. Elam, 68 Ohio St.3d 585 (consecutive sentences and aggravated murder context)
- State v. Davis, 133 Ohio App.3d 511 (standard: abuse of discretion for postconviction denials)