State v. Hudson (Slip Opinion), 161 N.E.3d 608

Background

Michael Hudson was convicted in 2006 of kidnapping, burglary (with a firearm specification), and related offenses; the trial court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms plus a five-year term of postrelease control.
At sentencing the court orally warned Hudson about postrelease-control consequences and provided a separate document, but the written sentencing entry did not include the mandatory notice of the consequences for violating postrelease control.
Hudson’s convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in 2007 and review was declined.
In 2018 Hudson filed a collateral motion claiming the omission in the sentencing entry rendered the postrelease-control portion of his sentence void; the trial court denied relief.
The Tenth District, relying on State v. Grimes, concluded the omission made that part of the sentence void and remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry; the state appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that under its intervening decision in State v. Harper the failure to include the required notice renders the sentence voidable (not void), so Hudson’s collateral attack is barred by res judicata; it reversed the court of appeals to the extent it remanded for correction.

Issues

Issue	Hudson’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether a trial court may correct, after the prison term has been served, a sentencing-entry omission failing to reference consequences for violating postrelease control	The omission cannot be corrected after the term is served; therefore postrelease control cannot be imposed	The omission is a sentencing error that is voidable and, if not raised on direct appeal, is barred by res judicata	The error is voidable, not void; collateral attack is barred by res judicata; remand to correct entry was reversed
Whether failure to include statutorily required notice in the sentencing entry renders that part of the sentence void	The Grimes rule makes the sentence (or that part) void and subject to attack at any time	The failure is an error in the exercise of jurisdiction and thus renders the sentence voidable, not void	The Court adopts the voidable characterization and overrules prior cases treating it as void
Whether Hudson’s claim may be raised collaterally more than a decade after direct appeal	Grimes and related precedent allow attack at any time because the sentence is void	Because the trial court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, the claim should have been raised on direct appeal and is now barred by res judicata	Claim is barred by res judicata because it could have been raised on direct appeal
Whether the court of appeals properly remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry to add the omitted notice	Nunc pro tunc correction is proper and required under Grimes	Nunc pro tunc remedy is not available to resurrect a claim barred by res judicata once the error is treated as voidable	The remand was reversed to the extent it ordered correction; collateral attack is barred

Key Cases Cited

State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19, 85 N.E.3d 700 (2017) (held that a sentencing entry must notify offender that violation of postrelease control will subject offender to statutory consequences)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21, 817 N.E.2d 864 (2004) (recognized exception permitting collateral attack when postrelease-control not properly imposed)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 942 N.E.2d 332 (2010) (addressed void-versus-voidable treatment of sentencing errors involving postrelease control)
Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 806 N.E.2d 992 (2004) (discusses distinction between void and voidable judgments)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967) (established rule on res judicata and collateral attack on convictions)
State v. Were, 120 Ohio St.3d 85, 896 N.E.2d 699 (2008) (applies res judicata principles to successive or collateral challenges to convictions)