Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT David L. Doughten David L. Doughten
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor By: Mahmoud S. Awadallah Assistant County
BEFORE: McCormack, J., E.A. Gallagher, P.J., and Boyle, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
Defendant-appellant Martez Hudson appeals from his conviction
following a guilty plea. For the reasons that follow, we
and Substantive History
In May 2014, Hudson and two codefendants were indicted on
multiple charges, including murder, grand theft, tampering
with evidence, and aggravated riot, stemming from a
gang-related shooting at a March 2014 party. At his
arraignment on July 8, 2014, Hudson pleaded not guilty to all
On September 14, 2015, Hudson withdrew his not guilty plea
and pleaded guilty to Count 2, murder, in violation of R.C.
2903.01(A), and Count 7, tampering with evidence, in
violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1). The murder count included
one- and three-year firearm specifications and a criminal
gang activity specification. In exchange for his guilty plea,
the state agreed to dismiss the remaining charges.
On December 22, 2015, the trial court sentenced Hudson to
life with parole eligibility after 15 years on the murder in
Count 2, to be served consecutively to a three-year term for
the corresponding firearm specification. The trial court then
sentenced Hudson to a concurrent three-year term for the
tampering with evidence charge in Count 7. The trial court
deleted the criminal gang activity specification at the
In his first and only assignment of error, Hudson maintains
that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily because the court failed to
advise him of his right to present a defense.
The underlying purpose of Crim.R. 11(C) is to convey certain
information to a defendant so that he or she can make a
voluntary and intelligent decision regarding whether to plead
guilty. State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473,
479-480, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981). "The standard for
reviewing whether the trial court accepted a plea in
compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) is a de novo standard of
review." State v. Cardwell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 92796, 2009-Ohio-6827, ¶ 26, citing State v.
Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 364 N.E.2d 1163 (1977).
In order to ensure that a defendant enters a plea knowingly,
voluntarily, and intelligently, a trial court must engage in
an oral dialogue with the defendant in accordance with
Crim.R. 11(C). State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525,
527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). ...