State v. Ludwick, 2017 Ohio 8463

In March 2016 Ludwick solicited Wade Smith to hire a hit man to kill his wife, discussing price ($30,000), logistics (address, when wife would be home), and payment methods; portions were audio/video recorded and corroborated by Smith and a detective.
Smith reported the solicitation to police, cooperated in a controlled meeting with a recording device, and provided a written address given by Ludwick.
Ludwick's wife testified about family finances, the value of assets that would benefit Ludwick if she died, and Ludwick's gambling and financial problems.
At trial the defense conceded Ludwick had not had a change of heart and focused on lack of a down‑payment/agreement argument (i.e., he never completed the conspiracy); jury convicted him of conspiracy to commit murder.
At sentencing the court considered letters and arguments about Ludwick’s gambling addiction but noted no expert or treatment evidence was offered; Ludwick received an 8‑year prison term.
On appeal Ludwick argued (1) ineffective assistance for failing to assert abandonment, (2) ineffective assistance for failing to investigate/present gambling‑addiction mitigation, (3) insufficiency of the evidence, and (4) manifest‑weight error; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy	State: recorded statements, Smith and detective testimony proved agreement and substantial overt acts	Ludwick: repeatedly told Smith he lacked a down payment so no final agreement	Court: Evidence (recording + corroboration) was legally sufficient — conviction affirmed
Manifest weight of evidence	State: evidence was overwhelming and credible	Ludwick: jury lost its way because he never consummated agreement	Court: No manifest‑weight error; jury did not lose its way
Ineffective assistance — failure to assert abandonment	State: abandonment defense would have been futile given continued detailed planning and payment assurances after claiming no cash	Ludwick: trial counsel should have argued he abandoned conspiracy by saying he lacked down payment	Court: Counsel not ineffective; evidence negated an abandonment claim and failure to raise it not prejudicial
Ineffective assistance — failure to develop gambling‑addiction mitigation	State: record does not show counsel failed to investigate; appellate record silent cannot prove deficiency or prejudice	Ludwick: counsel failed to investigate/present psychological evidence of gambling addiction as mitigation	Court: Reversal not warranted on direct appeal; record insufficient to infer failure to investigate or reasonable probability of different outcome

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (distinguishes legal sufficiency from manifest‑weight review)
Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (explains manifest‑weight standard and differences from sufficiency)
Jenks v. Ohio, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency standard: view evidence in prosecution's favor)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Monroe v. State, 105 Ohio St.3d 384 (Ohio 2005) (reiterates sufficiency review standard)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1982) (appellate court as thirteenth juror in weight review)
Martin v. Ohio, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (sets out weight‑of‑evidence considerations)